http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/epa-leaded-gas-may-return-along-with.html

...concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent in the past 2 1/2 decades

um yeah, and if they allow lead in gasoline again, won't those levels return?  Lead is a really, really bad thing to breathe in, and have in your system, and it's a culmative effect.  It builds up slowly overtime, and doesn't easily leave your system, especially if you live in a city, where you're constantly breathing in the exhuast of millions of vehicles.

The change isn't being prompted because of science, such as research showing that lead isn't hazardous. No, it's being prompted because the corporations would benefit from it.  Always a valid reason for the neocons. 

aaannnnnnddddd.... neocons continue to suck.

i wonder if this term "neocon" is a dodge to avoid actually criticizing conservatives? because breathing lead for corporations sounds to me like a plain-ole conservative policy. discuss.

conservatives used to be big on conserving the environment, too, back around teddy roosevelt's day. it's a real shame what's happened to em.

aaannnnnnddddd.... neocons continue to suck.

i wonder if this term "neocon" is a dodge to avoid actually criticizing conservatives? because breathing lead for corporations sounds to me like a plain-ole conservative policy. discuss.

conservatives used to be big on conserving the environment, too, back around teddy roosevelt's day. it's a real shame what's happened to em.


well, hence the term neo-con.  These are the new conservatives.  Don't confuse them with the old consvertives.  Someone like Tricky Dick would even be considered liberal now.  Look at the position these folks used to hold, and they sound quaint, almost rational.  Then look at the position the Republicans take now, and you wonder how it could even be the same party.

well, hence the term neo-con.  These are the new conservatives.  Don't confuse them with the old consvertives.  Someone like Tricky Dick would even be considered liberal now.  Look at the position these folks used to hold, and they sound quaint, almost rational.  Then look at the position the Republicans take now, and you wonder how it could even be the same party.
true, although at the same time "neocon" has come to refer to a very small group of people, paul wolfowitz and dick cheney and the actual policymakers. if what we mean is conservative policies, new or not, i think we should start talking about conservatives in general to make sure we convey that the man and woman on the street who supports these policies is included. it's high time "conservative" becomes a slur the way "liberal" was for so long.

Yeah, I heard about this.  My first thought was that the newsroom pulled up The Onion instead of the AP!  I think I have gained an insight into the right-wing though process. 
"Fifty years ago nobody knew how toxic leaded gas was, therefore it wasn't toxic.  It's the environmental whackos who made it toxic.  Thus, if we do away with the regulation, leaded gas won't be toxic all over again!"

In other words: what you don't know can't hurt you!

I'm used to right-wingers lobbying against environmental standards so long as the industries can dump their poisons where those worthless poor people live.  In this case, even their precious Dakota and Schuyler of Greenwich will breath lead from the gasoline.  It's unavoidable.  What are they going to do, walk around in space suits?

So, I think "denial" is the key concept here.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif

Lead particles from the leaded gasoline era are still in the environment today, and will be long after we're all dead. 

I'm all for bringing back lead in gasoline under one condition: gas prices are returned to thier 1978 (when tetraethyl lead was banned in the US) levels, which was about 63 cents a gallon. After all, if we're going to erase 28 years of progress, we need to erase 28 years of inflation as well.

::)

I'm all for bringing back lead in gasoline under one condition: gas prices are returned to thier 1978 (when tetraethyl lead was banned in the US) levels, which was about 63 cents a gallon. After all, if we're going to erase 28 years of progress, we need to erase 28 years of inflation as well.

::)

Here, here!

And if the attendants wash your windshield, check your dipstick, check your air pressure, and give your kid a souvenir Esso truck, then I've got just five words for you:
"Fill it up with regular!"
:D

Interestingly enough, the only reference to this seems to be this blog.  And the simple article referenced gives no names, no specifics, and no real information.  In fact, I did a quick search at Google News, and found exactly 2 references.  One of them the original article referenced above, and the other being a copy of the same article.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=Clean+Air+Act+

I think I will start my own news blog.  That way I can create articles like "UN Declairs Christianity Illegal", and "Iran to nuke the US unless it converts to Islam".

Now I am not denying the above article, I am simply saying that there is like no verification, and no factual information in it.  I prefer to work off of facts, not out of fear and paranoia.

I'm all for bringing back lead in gasoline under one condition: gas prices are returned to thier 1978 (when tetraethyl lead was banned in the US) levels, which was about 63 cents a gallon. After all, if we're going to erase 28 years of progress, we need to erase 28 years of inflation as well.

::)



We have 3 cars to gas up.....I'm sure my parents wouldn't mind 63 cents a gallon, but we can skip the lead.

Interestingly enough, the only reference to this seems to be this blog.  And the simple article referenced gives no names, no specifics, and no real information.  In fact, I did a quick search at Google News, and found exactly 2 references.  One of them the original article referenced above, and the other being a copy of the same article.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=Clean+Air+Act+

I think I will start my own news blog.  That way I can create articles like "UN Declairs Christianity Illegal", and "Iran to nuke the US unless it converts to Islam".

Now I am not denying the above article, I am simply saying that there is like no verification, and no factual information in it.  I prefer to work off of facts, not out of fear and paranoia.


This has no real bearing on the subject, but Nascar is converting to unleaded by this upcoming season.  According to their reports, countless millions of dollars has been spent getting the engines currently in use ready for the change to unleaded fuel. 

The whole issue od reintroducing leaded gas is, how shall we say, horse puckey.

Leaded gas, as a fuel, is actually an inferior prodct.  it contaminates engine oil, and it is no longer needed as a valve lubricant.

Furthermore, and importantly from an economic standpoint, it absolutely ruins oxygen/lamda sensors, which are essential in allowing hydrocarbon emissions too be low and fuel economy to be optimal.

Separate from the obvious issue of lead in the air, leaded gas makes no economic sense.  :P

Interestingly enough, the only reference to this seems to be this blog.  And the simple article referenced gives no names, no specifics, and no real information.  In fact, I did a quick search at Google News, and found exactly 2 references.  One of them the original article referenced above, and the other being a copy of the same article.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=Clean+Air+Act+

I think I will start my own news blog.  That way I can create articles like "UN Declairs Christianity Illegal", and "Iran to nuke the US unless it converts to Islam".

Now I am not denying the above article, I am simply saying that there is like no verification, and no factual information in it.  I prefer to work off of facts, not out of fear and paranoia.


try a little harder next time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601947.html

a search for epa lead fuel 2006 and "Henry Waxman" who is mentioned by name in the post, quickly turned up relevant news sources in google

the blog is a little misleading.  Leaded gas isn't going to return, they're just no longer going to enforce the laws as stringently as they did for gasoline for other industries.  That way Duracell can save a nickel on a battery or something even smaller no doubt.

try a little harder next time:


sorry, that came out a bit snarky...

You run this gig.  You're allowed to get snarky.

The whole issue od reintroducing leaded gas is, how shall we say, horse puckey.

Leaded gas, as a fuel, is actually an inferior prodct.  it contaminates engine oil, and it is no longer needed as a valve lubricant.

Furthermore, and importantly from an economic standpoint, it absolutely ruins oxygen/lamda sensors, which are essential in allowing hydrocarbon emissions too be low and fuel economy to be optimal.

Separate from the obvious issue of lead in the air, leaded gas makes no economic sense.  :P

Even if the industry and its lobbyists pushed like crazy, the whole process would take years.  The entire fleet is designed for unleaded gasoline.  How well would today's cars even run on leaded gasoline?

This whole thing to me sounds more like a symbolic way for a discredited and hated government to give us all the finger.

You run this gig.  You're allowed to get snarky.


really not an excuse, I shouldn't hold others to standards if I'm not willing to meet them myself

really not an excuse, I shouldn't hold others to standards if I'm not willing to meet them myself

Oh where's the fun in that?  "Conscience," guffaw!
;)

really not an excuse, I shouldn't hold others to standards if I'm not willing to meet them myself


Yeah, but snark is the only rational response to the political situation on this planet.  Sort of a catch-22 :)

I'm just wondering how this would benefit the corporations. I can remember (barely) when they first started making cars that ran strictly on unleaded, and the cars all had (and continue to have to this day) a smaller hole in the filler neck to accommodate a smaller nozzle that was installed on all the unleaded pumps, so the larger nozzles on the "regular" (leaded) pumps wouldn't fit. I guess I haven't paid that close attention to the newer cars, but my car is a 1999 model and it says on the inside of the filler door, "UNLEADED GAS ONLY."  I'm no mechanic, but if they reintroduce leaded gasoline, won't this somehow foul up all the engines that were designed to run on unleaded? 

And here is a little technical tidbit for people to chew over:

The reason why lead was removed from fuel was because it would not combust in a catalytic converter.  Instead of combusting, it would cover the platinum fins inside the converter with a thin film of lead.  The converter was introduced as a way to reduce air polution.

And does anybody remember when Catalytic Converters became mandatory in US cars?  Anybody?  Anybody?

1975.

So let me see if I got this right.  "Evil Corporations" are going to conspire to allow lead back into our fuel, which will ruin our ecology.

And I am curious, how many of us even own a vehicle that was built prior to 1975?  Anybody?  Anybody?

Hmmmm, I do own a 1972 van.  And it has been sitting in the back rusting away, because I do not want to spend the money to fix it.  I doubt if even 1-3% of vehicles on the road today can burn Leaded gasoline.  About the only recent vehicles that can are motorcycles, because they do not have catalytic converters.

And here is yet another "big secret":  Lead is an additive.  "Unleaded" gasoline was actually cheaper to manufacture then "Leaded" gasoline, gas companies simply charged more for it because it was less used in the early days, and cost more to handle it because it required special handling (it could never be mixed with leaded gasolines).  And over the years, people simply got used to paying 1-2 cents more for it, so they kept charging more.  By the early 1990's when it was finally banned, gas companies were glad to get rid of it.

Because by 1990, the majority of gasoline sold was unleaded.  And the shipping and distribution systems had now converted to unleaded being the bulk product.  A lot of stations even stopped carrying leaded gasoline, because the demand was no longer there.  Towards the end, leaded actually cost more to produce and distribute.  This is why in the last year or so of it being available, leaded and unleaded normally sold for the same price.

So once again, it forms a big "so what" to me.  I seriously doubt if we will see more then a handfull of gas stations even selling "Leaded Gasoline" even if it was allowed, simply because there is no demand for it.  And in the last 15 years, even better additives have been invented then lead (which was used to boost the octane rating by 2.  This reduced the "knocking" in early automobiles).  In fact, a lot of the additives in use now are actually one of the first additives used: iodine.


I'm just wondering how this would benefit the corporations. I can remember (barely) when they first started making cars that ran strictly on unleaded, and the cars all had (and continue to have to this day) a smaller hole in the filler neck to accommodate a smaller nozzle that was installed on all the unleaded pumps, so the larger nozzles on the "regular" (leaded) pumps wouldn't fit. I guess I haven't paid that close attention to the newer cars, but my car is a 1999 model and it says on the inside of the filler door, "UNLEADED GAS ONLY."  I'm no mechanic, but if they reintroduce leaded gasoline, won't this somehow foul up all the engines that were designed to run on unleaded?  


That is exactly what crossed my mind.  Gas Stations will have to dedicate at least 1 tank and pump system to "Leaded" gasoline.  Gas companies will have to segregate petrol carriers (or parts of petrol carriers) for carrying leaded gasoline.  And no cars made after 1975 will be able to use this gasoline.

And who is really going to use it?  I have a motorcycle, but I am certainly not going to use it.  Unless I go to a gas station that has Leaded Premium for sale at a significant lower price then Unleaded Premium.  And I don't see that ever happening in my lifetime.

I smell a hoax.

I smell a hoax.


it's not a hoax.  It's just people don't understand what is being done.  They aren't going to begin selling leaded gas.  They're just going to ignore the laws that were enacted to remove lead from gas.  While that means leaded gas could return, it wouldn't return even if this change in the law passed.

What it does mean however, is that other industries that were affected by the same legislation, will no longer be bound by these rules to keep from polluting the air.  Such as battery manufacturers, lead smelters, and refiners.  Industries that would easily eclipse the amount of lead that used to be pushed into the air by leaded gas in cars decades ago.

I guess it's no big deal so long as you live nowhere near any of the industries this affects.  Like nowhere within a 100 mile radius.

I smell a hoax.

I smell an Onion.
;D

it's not a hoax.  It's just people don't understand what is being done.  They aren't going to begin selling leaded gas.  They're just going to ignore the laws that were enacted to remove lead from gas.  While that means leaded gas could return, it wouldn't return even if this change in the law passed.

What it does mean however, is that other industries that were affected by the same legislation, will no longer be bound by these rules to keep from polluting the air.  Such as battery manufacturers, lead smelters, and refiners.  Industries that would easily eclipse the amount of lead that used to be pushed into the air by leaded gas in cars decades ago.

I guess it's no big deal so long as you live nowhere near any of the industries this affects.  Like nowhere within a 100 mile radius.

No sir!  Congress passed the Clean Air Acts in the 1960s because they hated capitalism.  Buncha pinko commies in our midst.  Look, the government doesn't have to play nanny to us.  Let the free market do its job for chrissakes!  If a company dumps poisons into our soil, air, and water, we the consumers just won't buy their products.  Who wants to patronize a business that gives your grandmother cancer?  The market works.  That's why the DuPonts are all sitting out on skid row....oh, wait a minute, lemme get back to you on this one!
:D

it's not a hoax.  It's just people don't understand what is being done.  They aren't going to begin selling leaded gas.  They're just going to ignore the laws that were enacted to remove lead from gas.  While that means leaded gas could return, it wouldn't return even if this change in the law passed.


But leaded gasoline had largely been pulled from the market even before it was made into a law.  The law of "supply and demand" simply made it uneconomical to continue to sell it (with the higher cost of handling) then unleaded gas.  By 1992 (when the law banning it went into effect), it was already pretty much gone from the marketplace.  There were basically very few cars left that could even use the leaded gasoline.

Leaded gasoline was not banned until 1996.  But how many gas stations were selling it beyond 1993?  Not very many.  I know that I took a trip to Idaho in 1993, and only remember seeing it iat one gas station.  Almost all of the cars without catalytic converters are gone (except for the few "classic cars", which are rarely driven).

And you also have regional and state laws that come into effect.  Leaded gasoline dissapeared from California in 1990-1991, because of state emissions standards.  And how do you explain how the corporations will make money, when they will be allowed to bring back an additive?  Not to mention that TEL (Tetra-ethyl lead) is no longer even produced in the quantity needed in order to supply the demand if it was allowed.

I did do a little research, and what is being talked about is extending the exemption for ledded gasoline.  Currently, lead can only be sold in fuel for racing vehicles, aircraft, marine, and farm equipment.  The proposed exemption is mostly aimed at the Aircrafy and Marine uses, because of the expense of replacing the engines with ones that run properly on unleaded fuels (if it is even possible - for a lot of old aircraft, there is no practicle replacements).  The vast majority of farming equipment already uses diesel engines, so the amount that would use leaded fuel is very small.

Currently, the exemption is set to end in January 2008.  The proposal is designed to make a permanent exemption for those vehicles in which is it not practacle (or possible) to replace or overhaul the engines, or where a proper and safe alternative is not available (such as aircraft).  And we are talking about a group of vehicles which are already exempt, and new vehicles will not be given future exemptions.

So a 1942 P-38 flown by the Confederate Air Force can continue to use leaded gasoline.  A 2007 replica with a modern engine will not be allowed to use leaded gasoline.

  I doubt if even 1-3% of vehicles on the road today can burn Leaded gasoline.  About the only recent vehicles that can are motorcycles, because they do not have catalytic converters.


While not all motorcyles have catalytic converters, quite a few of the more recent models do; same with many two-stroke jet-skis, and possibly snow mobiles. Cat-cons are not new to bikes, either; the 1984 Yamaha RZ350 two-stroke had them to pass emissions.

I agree with Mushroom: I think this 'push' is not so much to allow leaded gas in on-road vehicles again, but to extend the apparent 2008 no-lead deadline for other applications. According to Wikipedia, "Possession and use of leaded gasoline in a regular on-road vehicle now carries a maximum $10,000 fine in the United States. However, fuel containing lead may continue to be sold for off-road uses, including aircraft, racing cars, farm equipment, and marine engines until 2008."

I couldn't find a source citing 2008 as cut-off date for complete elimination of leaded fuel sale, but I know NASCAR was to remove it by then, and has actually done so a year early; all races next year, save possibly Daytona, will be run with non-leaded fuel.

try a little harder next time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601947.html

a search for epa lead fuel 2006 and "Henry Waxman" who is mentioned by name in the post, quickly turned up relevant news sources in google

the blog is a little misleading.  Leaded gas isn't going to return, they're just no longer going to enforce the laws as stringently as they did for gasoline for other industries.  That way Duracell can save a nickel on a battery or something even smaller no doubt.
I don't mean to sound snarky myself, but perhaps the title of this whole thread sounded a little misleading.

I don't mean to sound snarky myself, but perhaps the title of this whole thread sounded a little misleading.


Actually, I somewhat agree.  To be honest, if I am going to search for a change in the "Clean Air Act", why would I do a search for "Henry Waxman"?  I am going to search for "Clean Air Act", because any responsible journalist is going to site that in his article.

Any article which does not have those words is more then likely some kind of bombastic commentary, which is intended to sew misunderstanding.  Much like the original one.

While not all motorcyles have catalytic converters, quite a few of the more recent models do; same with many two-stroke jet-skis, and possibly snow mobiles. Cat-cons are not new to bikes, either; the 1984 Yamaha RZ350 two-stroke had them to pass emissions.

I couldn't find a source citing 2008 as cut-off date for complete elimination of leaded fuel sale, but I know NASCAR was to remove it by then, and has actually done so a year early; all races next year, save possibly Daytona, will be run with non-leaded fuel.


Actually, very few motorcycles have "cats".  The only one the guys in the shop could think of off the top of their heads was the 2004 Honda CBR1000.  And of course the pre-production "V-4 Water Cooled" Harley-Davidson that was developed (but never widely released) in order to comply with emissions standards that were made for California motorcycles (which were then dropped before being enforced).

In the smaller circuit stock car racing, they often use leaded fuels because they often use pre-1975 engines.  And even when they use more modern engines, they remove the catalytic converter for safety reasons (in the event of a crash, nobody wants a hot catalytic resting right under the fuel tank).

I applaud NASCAR for the decision to use unleaded fuels.  But the drivers have the advantage of huge sponsorship budgets and the latest in automotive design in helping them pay for the change.  For every NASCAR driver, there are 300 "amatuer" racers, who build their cars themselves, and do not have the money to pay for these conversions.  These are the "true" stock car racers, who use "off the shelf" cars (instead of what NASCAR has become - $500,000+ specialty built cars that sit under a fiberglass replica of a "stock car" body).

One of the mechanics in the back does Stock Car drag with his 1966 Mustang, and he mixes his own fuel for races.  And most of the others do motorcycle drag (one does ATV raceing).  I asked them a bit ago, and almost all of them use leaded fuel, because of the higher compression and greater safety (when compared to the other systems for increasing horsepower, like NO2 and Nitro fuels).  They are also the ones that told me yesterday about the exemption for racers, and that it is set to expire at the end of 2007.  Most of them are behind making the exemption permanent, because otherwise most of the older vehicles will be forced to withdraw from racing.

Actually, I somewhat agree.  To be honest, if I am going to search for a change in the "Clean Air Act", why would I do a search for "Henry Waxman"?  I am going to search for "Clean Air Act", because any responsible journalist is going to site that in his article.

Any article which does not have those words is more then likely some kind of bombastic commentary, which is intended to sew misunderstanding.  Much like the original one.


Search for UNIQUE keywords.  Henry Waxman is mentioned in the original article and is more likely to produce a solid hit than any other generic keyword mentioned in the article. The Clean Air Act is a favorite punching bag of conservative wind bags, and more likely to bring up hundreds of "bombastic commentaries" than that of a single elected person who will also be mentioned in regular news items.

and yes, the title of thread is a little misleading, which is why I clarified it later when I realized it. 

As for the excuses as to why this is no big deal, it's rather weak attempt to cover the lobbying attempts of well known polluters. Here's the key phrase from the Post write up:

Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits.

None of those companies have ANYTHING to gain from a return to leaded gas.  They have plenty to gain if the same limitations to air pollution that were enforced on the automobile manufacturers and gasoline producers are not going to be enforced on their industries. Follow the money.

I think it is absolutely horrendous that there are any human beings on this planet who would even consider adding to the pollution that already exists in our ever more fragile environment...particularly for a reason to gain some ridiculous financial savings.  In fact, I sincerely hope that this country, after the present administration is flushed from office, officially supports and assists in the strengthening of the regulations for a cleaner environment initiated by the Kyoto Accords.  I just pray it is not too late, already!