zlacker

Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

submitted by geox+(OP) on 2026-02-03 01:52:21 | 366 points 304 comments
[view article] [source] [go to bottom]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2525498123


NOTE: showing posts with links only show all posts
◧◩
8. epista+bh[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 04:03:43
>>russdi+Jb
Coal is mostly sticking around in the US because of federal overreach to keep unprofitable and ancient coal generators going long after anybody wants to pay for the high maintenance.

Last week, a Colorado utility was "respectfully" asking to be able to close a plant:

> TTri-State Generation and partner Platte River Power Authority had a “respectful” but emphatic response late Thursday to the Trump administration ordering them to keep Craig’s Unit 1 coal-fired plant open past the New Year:

> They don’t need it, they don’t want it, and their inflation-strapped consumers can’t afford the higher bills. Plus, the federal order is unconstitutional.

https://coloradosun.com/2026/01/30/craig-tri-state-petition-...

TVA has also been begging to close a money losing coal plant for a while now, writing letters to FERC about it, but I can't find the link now.

New coal is far too expensive to build anymore too. Handling big amounts of solid material is expensive, and big old unresponsive baseload is undesirable for achieving economic efficiency.

Even China, which is still building new coal plants, is lessening their coal usage. Personally I think they'll keep some around to continue economic influence on Australia, which is one their primary countries for experimenting with methods to increase their soft power.

There is no technical or economic reason to want coal power today.

◧◩
9. Menger+Xp[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 05:29:17
>>russdi+Jb
Burning coal is a huge and easy win. Artisinal and small scale gold mining should be high on the list too, even though it's a much harder problem:

https://www.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/what-we-do/art...

◧◩◪
19. gwd+jy1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 14:16:09
>>epista+bh
> There is no technical or economic reason to want coal power today.

For anyone wanting a slightly ranty but also informed description of why, I enjoyed this Hank Green video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfvBx4D0Cms&pp=ygUPaGFuayBnc...

◧◩◪◨
22. ZeroGr+7A1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 14:25:08
>>dnauti+xx1
Can you identify when exactly the German environmentalists did this thing you refer to? I'm assuming it's something coal related.

Total and per capita coal usage for Germany and a few other peer nations:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-count...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-per-capi...

I can see a bump in early 1980s but I see the same in other nations, possibly a response to oil embargoes, possibly just economic growth.

32. ck2+vD1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 14:44:05
>>geox+(OP)
unless you live next to an airport or even remotely close to it

then lead is being sprayed all over you, your car and home, daily

for THREE DECADES NOW

no rush, not like it's poison or does permanent damage to your health/IQ

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

35. lenerd+sE1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 14:47:54
>>geox+(OP)
I really want to see elimination of lead (projectiles, lead styphnate primers, etc.) in firearms next.

When I go to the range, every once in a while, I'll see one of the older marksmen who's there with his squirrel hunting rifle, chambered in .22 LR. I've noticed that he seems to have a tremor in his hands when he's loading his magazines. Essential tremor is linked to lead exposure [0]

Most .22 LR projectiles are either just lead or have a copper "wash" over the lead, not a proper jacket like you see on other rounds.

I wonder, if you shoot those loads for long enough, and breathe in enough gunsmoke, do you get that problem?

As for the proof being in our hair... well, not mine. Chrome dome over here XD

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1241711/

◧◩◪◨⬒
36. throww+XE1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 14:49:28
>>yieldc+dD1
Lead exposure gives you brain damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning. If you damage your frontal lobes, you generally become more impulsive and less measured in your response to things. Ergo, chronic lead poisoning causes populations to become more aggressive and more likely to engage in crime.
◧◩
38. andych+8F1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 14:50:05
>>cfigge+7B1
Note that the current administration closed its research and science office.

https://www.science.org/content/article/blow-environment-epa...

◧◩◪
40. prasad+uF1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 14:51:42
>>epista+bh
> There is no technical or economic reason to want coal power today.

A quick look at the PJM interconnect data would disagree with you. About a quarter of the live power is coal.

https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx

That serves 65+ Million people in the north east and is keeping them from dying of cold this past week, including today (Temp outside in the mid-hudson valley is 15F / -9C), and overnight will be 8F / -13C).

Just for context - electricity somehow powers everything in most homes. Your oil or propane furnace needs a power hookup to ignite.

42. gambit+OF1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 14:52:51
>>geox+(OP)
Fun fact - leaded petrol isn't actually banned in the UK, you can legally buy it and use it. The legislation at the time of bans just made it so that leaded petrol could only be a small % of overall petrol sales by any given fuel station, arguing that it allowed time for owners of unleaded-incompatible cars to purchase it.

And....it worked pretty much exactly as designed - initially only the largest stations carried it because they could justify the storage costs, and eventually it disappeared from almost everywhere. Just before covid there were still 3 small garages selling leaded petrol by the drum, but afaik they all stopped doing so.

And regardless - you can stil buy actual real Tetraethyl Lead fuel additive which turns your petrol into actual real 4-star leaded petrol, just like in the old days:

https://www.demon-tweeks.com/tetraboost-e-guard-15-fuel-addi...

◧◩
57. bluedi+SJ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 15:12:28
>>t1234s+4A1
You can buy it online from Sunoco

https://petroleumservicecompany.com/sunoco-supreme-112-octan...

I think they only sell the unleaded race gas at the pumps now but I may be wrong.

◧◩◪
64. latexr+CL1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 15:21:28
>>Faaak+yG1
You’re conjuring an image of children licking walls, but just the dust from the flaking paint chips is harmful.

https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/prevention/paint.html

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
92. Cerium+4V1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 15:58:51
>>DiggyJ+BP1
If you wanted to pay for direct air capture of CO2 to directly "undo" your climate effect of driving, the cost would currently be about $6 per gallon. Price comes from [1], found [2] looking for a second opinion on current direct air capture cost.

[1] https://theclimatecapitalist.com/articles/gas-should-cost-13... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/phildeluna/2024/11/29/will-dire...

◧◩◪
94. davidw+6W1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 16:02:30
>>breaky+qS1
There's certainly some "environmentalism" out there that's using the banner of the environment for other ends.

Here's one example: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-02/california-...

I mostly agree with you, but it is worth paying attention to the details.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
95. zug_zu+8W1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 16:02:35
>>rayine+ON1
I think you're missing the point -- the point is that gasoline companies KNEW ABOUT alternative lead-free substitutes for anti-knock (such as ethanol) and chose lead because they perceived it was less profitable. [1] Specifically because ethanol wasn't patentable and TEL was, and ultimately it WAS patented.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

◧◩◪◨
120. bevr13+y12[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 16:25:11
>>davidw+6W1
This article doesn't speak to me. What I read is, "Won't someone think of the poor UC system?" But the UC system is _massive_

> But Casa Joaquin’s neighboring, overwhelmingly white homeowners could have used CEQA to demand costly studies and multiple hearings before Berkeley officials.

Important to note that white people are well-represented at UC Berkley too. https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley-quick-facts

> More recently, a series of court rulings that culminated last year nearly forced Berkeley to withhold admission of thousands of high school seniors...

Graduating high-school seniors are also known as incoming freshman or legal adults.

> ... because the state’s judges agreed with NIMBY neighborhood groups that population growth is an inherent environmental impact under CEQA.

Ok, let's see how big the UC school system is...

> The University maintains approximately 6,000 buildings enclosing 137 million gross square feet on approximately 30,000 acres across its ten campuses, five medical centers, nine agricultural research and extension centers, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2017/chapt...

I'm not seeing evidence that protestors were primarily NIMBYs and pesky white homeowners. I can find several articles citing _student_ protests.

> “It’s students who set up People’s Park in the first place, so it’s our place to defend it,” said Athena Davis, a first-year student at UC Berkeley who spoke at the rally. “It’s up to students to reject the idea that our housing needs to come at the price of destroying green space and homes for the marginalized.”

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/01/30/protesters-tear-down...

◧◩◪◨
125. darkna+B22[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 16:28:49
>>gwd+jy1
Technology Connections also released a great rant on it (and more) recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

◧◩◪◨
141. titzer+V52[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 16:41:14
>>t1234s+ZN1
Ancient Romans used lead as a sweetener.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/sugar-of-lead-a-...

156. krunck+qc2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:07:34
>>geox+(OP)
Also: Preserved hair reveals just how bad lead exposure was in the 20th century (livescience.com) - >>46872282
◧◩◪◨⬒
163. WorldM+6i2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 17:32:29
>>breaky+h22
Chernobyl may have done a lot to inflame cultural imagination of what could happen in the worst cases, but the US still had its own high profile disasters like Three Mile Island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

◧◩◪◨
169. Howard+Zj2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 17:39:11
>>an_acc+mZ1
CEQA itself is a mixed bag. I want to be clear that there are very important things the CEQA does to improve our environmental conditions[0]! The very real issue of CEQA being “weaponized”[1] stems from how environmental complaints have to be re-litigated in their entirety every time one is filed. Say there’s a coalition of neighbors who do not want something built. They can each file a lawsuit alleging environmental issues and each will have to be handled in isolation

*I am not going into immense detail here. It is admittedly a bit more complex than this, but this is a reasonable summary

[0] https://youtu.be/TKN7Cl6finE?si=CR4SjVK5_ojk-OKq [1] https://www.planningreport.com/2015/12/21/new-ceqa-study-rev...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
175. davidw+vl2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 17:44:28
>>bevr13+Hj2
Fortunately, this egregious nonsense lead to the CEQA rules being modified so that NIMBYs like these can't weaponize them so easily in situations like this.

https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/06/ceqa-urban-developmen...

◧◩◪◨⬒
183. freshp+6q2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 18:01:58
>>danlit+SS1
They're not necessarily large, and the worst for humans is small particulate which gets into the bloodstream through lungs, PM2.5.

https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.ht...

Breathing in unhealthy levels of PM2.5 can increase the risk of health problems like heart disease, asthma, and low birth weight. Unhealthy levels can also reduce visibility and cause the air to appear hazy.

Outdoor sources include vehicle exhaust, burning wood, gas and other fuels, and fires. Particle pollution can also travel long distances from its source; for example from wildfires hundreds of miles away. Outdoor particle pollution levels are more likely to be higher on days with little or no wind or air mixing.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
184. _DeadF+fq2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 18:02:42
>>cucumb+p02
The kinda are/were

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

◧◩◪◨⬒
191. JKCalh+Qs2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 18:11:47
>>soulof+aN1
Yeah, Thomas Midgley Jr., from Wikipedia [1]:

"…played a major role in developing leaded gasoline and some of the first chlorofluorocarbons…; both products were later banned from common use due to their harmful impact on human health and the environment. He was granted more than 100 patents over the course of his career."

As someone else said, this guy's work was so toxic to the planet we ought to ban everything else he ever invented—just in case.

(And weirdly, one of his own machines took his life as well—whether by design or not.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

◧◩
194. _DeadF+Wt2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 18:16:29
>>j45+Aq2
I wonder how big a factor this is in creating podcast bros/tech bros. Is there actually a pipeline from 'get guy to start working out' to becoming a dumb bro?

https://www.consumerreports.org/lead/protein-powders-and-sha...

◧◩◪◨
197. munifi+Av2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 18:23:02
>>xp84+0L1
I grew up in Cancer Alley. Here's my old neighborhood: https://maps.app.goo.gl/3DZbiz8Bgyx5tx7v9

That wedge surrounded by green is a neighborhood that was created by landfilling a patch of swamp and building a levee around it. The northeast side of the wedge is the "nice" part of the neighborhood. You can see the houses are much bigger and there is a golf course running through it. There's a country club and lot of very nice houses. That's where a lot of upper level oil company employees live. (We lived here, my stepfather was a research chemist at DuPont.)

The southwest side of the neighborhood (much of it literally on "the other side of the tracks") is the cheaper houses and some apartments where a lot of blue collar employees work.

Zoom out a bit and you see Shell Norco to the northwest, the very heart of (and cause of) Cancer Alley. Ormond Estates was basically created to be a commuter neighborhood for Shell. Across the river is Dow Chemical. Look east and you see the IMTT St. Rose chemical plant. Keep going upriver and you get to DuPont and the Marathon Refinery.

Most of the executives responsible for cancer here do live in the area. People of all stripes have an impressive ability to maintain cognitive dissonance and live in denial when they are incentivized to do so.

Southern Louisiana is an intense microcosm of this. Seafood is one of the biggest industries there and you would think the local culture would be intensely protective of the environment, especially after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. But environmentalism is woven into liberal culture that is in opposition to the religious conservative culture of the area, so it often gets actively rejected even though poor people in Louisiana are the ones who suffer for their choice.

"Strangers in Their Own Land" is an excellent social science book if you want to know more about the area.

◧◩◪
220. tjohns+pV2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 20:06:39
>>wat100+5k2
There definitely is urgency to phase out leaded aviation gasoline. The FAA is proposing that we phase it out by 2030 - just 4 years from now - even though we still haven't agreed on which of the 3 competing gas blends to standardize on, the pumping infrastructure only exists at a small number of airports, and even though there's still open concerns about them causing engine damage.

They just published a draft version of the transition plan here: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/draft_unleaded_avgas...

◧◩◪
222. tjohns+wW2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 20:12:33
>>jabl+MR1
At least in the US, the current proposed plan is to phase out leaded avgas by 2030: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/draft_unleaded_avgas...
◧◩◪◨
234. rayine+v23[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 20:40:21
>>cassep+TK1
Sibling comments are good. I'll add that the biggest concern is PM2.5 (particulates smaller than 2.5 micrometers). They're thought to be responsible for 70,000 excess deaths in the U.S. annually, more than homicides or drug overdoses: https://www.stateofglobalair.org/health/pm
◧◩◪◨⬒
245. slavik+4o3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 22:32:06
>>epista+om2
The £700M (960M USD) spent on fish protection measures at Hinkley Point C would be a topical example [1]. It's expected to save an average of a few hundred twaite shad, six river lamprey, and eighteen allis shad per year, plus one salmon every twelve years, and a trout every thirty-six years.

https://www.salmonbusiness.com/nuclear-plants-new-700-millio...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
264. epista+bP3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 01:07:11
>>tricer+ot3
Edit: here's Guardian reporting on the report cited by Salmon Business https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/12/health-and-... . As somebody who has spent nearly all of my political activity in the past 8 years trying to change local regulations to allow more housing, the whole thing reeks of unfair analysis on all sides and hyper-partisanship. I largely think there should be a more rational evaluation of requirements all around, but it does sound like the 44 tons of killed fish per year is pretty small compared to other human impact, but $700M is not going to save Hinkley Point C.

The stilted phrasing in the report from Salmon Business definitely does not sound very credible, but marine life protection is definitely a real thing with nuclear and all fuel-burning electricity generation

The vast quantities of water needed to cool nuclear (for every kWh of electricity, 2 kWh of waste heat must be discarded) can have significant impacts on wildlife. In the past, we just devastated ecosystems but most modern countries decided they didn't want to do that anymore.

This is not a nuclear regulation, it's a "thermal plant" regulation, it's just that nuclear needs more cooling than, say, combined-cycle gas because nuclear's lower temperatures are less efficient at converting heat to electricity.

At a mere $700M, even dropping all marine life mitigations from Hinkley Point C wouldn't help much with affordability. If they could drop $7B of costs from Hinkley then it may start to have a halfway-competitive price, but it still wouldn't be very attractive.

[go to top]