| I definitely support fixing those issues! They’ve also been known as a class as a problem (along with catalytic converter particles) for well over 30 years. There have been multiple studies linking proximity to freeways with asthma and decreased life span, serious health issues like COPD, and even significant increases in sudden unexplained deaths. 45 million Americans live within the high risk zones (300 feet or meters, I forget), countless new daycares, old folks homes, and residential high rises get built there every day, and almost every American is exposed significantly due to being in vehicles on average of an hour a day with insufficient filtering. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-11/documents/42...] The issue here isn’t that aircraft engines last ‘decades’. It’s that aircraft owners are only legally allowed to use fuels approved by the FAA for their aircraft, and per the various authorizations for their aircraft. Which vary. The engines may get rebuilt, but without a very expensive type change and approval (often from the manufacturer) they’re the same design as the original. Which has the same limitations. So until there is a viable authorized replacement (per the FAA), literally they can’t use it except in emergencies. Which only just became available. And they can’t change engines either. And they can’t just YOLO it legally. Because fuel is a major cause of crashes that kill people already (usually contamination, or wrong fuel causing engine failures/flameouts). And despite the FAA knowing of the risks of lead (or more precisely, knowing the various factors), they only recently did authorize a replacement. So it’s as if that study on those plastics happened 30 years ago, and we’re just now getting around to it. Which essentially is what has happened with cars and the various pollution. So raking anyone over the coals when a far larger, more damaging, and widespread crisis has always been going on for even longer and gets ignored? Yeah I’m pointing out the hypocrisy. It’s always about resources in proportion to risk, and arguably the FAA has dumped far more resources and mitigated a far less damaging risk (in many concrete ways) far faster with this leaded fuel issue than one near and dear all of us. |
Which also drives the call to reduce car use, wherein someone is also likely to point out that driving is not a right but a privilege.
> So it’s as if that study on those plastics happened 30 years ago, and we’re just now getting around to it. Which essentially is what has happened with cars and the various pollution.
Yes. And lead wasn't banned for interior paint until decades after some other countries. The US regulatory system is strongly weighted in favor of business over health and environment.
> raking anyone over the coals
As if! This is finding. The EPA must then "propose and promulgate emission standards", which the FAA must then turn into regulations.
It sets no deadlines, it makes no policy changes other than for the EPA and FAA.
I suspect it will take years before the first regulations appear, and with years to allow a changeover.