On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Bollen wrote:
> Tom Tweed wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> The strange thing is that I grew up in England in a house built in the
> 20's which had lead water pipes, and alkaline water, which dissolves
> lead. While I do not lay claim to be completely sane, since I buy LBC's,
> I was at one time a member of MENSA, and coming up to 60 haven't yet
> gone completely ga-ga. I also played with mercury, and worked in chem
> labs where asbestos insulated our heating vessels, and worked
> extensively with undiluted agent orange in the late 50s. I used
> Chlordane to kill ants inside my house, and had extensive exposure to
> benzene, vinyl chloride to name but a few. There's a lot of bullshit
> science out there that people are making a lot of bucks from.
>
>
Bear in mind that some people are just less affected by some toxins.
Also, if you used those substances when you were younger, your exposure
may not have been long enough. Notice how some five-pack-a-day smokers
are still puffing away at ninety, while others quit at thirty and still
die early. Some people are just less susceptible. It doesn't mean
certain substances aren't actually toxic.
Jim Ruwaldt
'72 TR6 CC79338U
Bloomington, IN
|