Hello Bill, you responded to my post -
>Tom Tweed wrote:
>>
>> Well, you really don't need no stinkin' lead, either. Its addition
>> to gasoline dates from the 1920's, before modern chemistry had
>> managed to get the octane number up high enough through refining alone.
>>
>
>Hi All,
> I'm not a Chemist, but I thought the level of pollutants produced by
>Unleaded fuel was considered more dangerous than those produced by
>leaded, because of the high level of carcinogenic aromatics necessary to
>raise the Octane to the same level as leaded. The only advantage of the
>unleaded is the ability it gives to use a catalytic converter, which
>once warm, Genuinely gives a reduction in pollutants.
>
>Comments from any Chemists on the list would be welcome.
>
> Bill.
>--
Well, I'm not a chemist either, but I work with a few of them here
at a Toxic Hazard research lab, and from our discussions, it seems
that the lead itself is the problem, and since the catalytic con-
vertor would be ruined by lead and is also necessary to reduce the
total emissions, those are two very good reasons to abandon the
lead content. The blood lead levels of children have come down
significantly in the years since the lead phase-out, can't give
you hard numbers off the bat, but this seems to be common know-
ledge among some health/environmental chemists, and a sure sign
of the success of the decision, it seems to me.
Surely you have heard of the blame for the downfall of the Roman
Empire being placed on their use of lead water pipes for plumbing,
which in fact gives plumbing its English name and lead its chemical
abbreviation, Pb. 8-) Not that I'd care to argue the above, es-
pecially on this Triumph list, but since lead is such a well-known
health hazard, especially to the young, I just can't see any good
reason for spewing tons of it into the air for the gratification
of a few LEAD-footed motorheads !
Horse-hair lined, fiberglass-reenforced asbestos undies at the
ready,
Tom Tweed
SW Ohio
Brehm Research Lab, Wright State U. Chem. dept.
|