i apologize if this is old....I searched and didn't see another thread about it.

Quote :

"EPA: Leaded gas may return, along with lower standards WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is considering doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline, widely regarded as one of the nation's biggest clean-air accomplishments. The Environmental Protection Agency said this week that revoking those standards might be justified "given the significantly changed circumstances since lead was listed in 1976" as an air pollutant, claiming that concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent in the past 2 1/2 decades. Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits. But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, called on the agency to "renounce this dangerous proposal immediately," because lead, a highly toxic element, can cause severe nerve damage, especially in children."

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

I, for one, find this absolutely ridiculous. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, they are basically saying "This worked so well, that we no longer need to do it anymore...so now we can get back to polluting".

If this doesn't show the power that certain industries have within our government, I don't know what does. I hate the way things work in Washington.

12/14/2006 8:42:00 AM

that may be one of the dumbest ideas i've ever heard

12/14/2006 8:53:32 AM

if i donate $texas to your campaign, can you make 1+1=3?

12/14/2006 8:57:59 AM

Quote :

"I hate the way things work in Washington"

12/14/2006 9:05:11 AM

Yeah, I don't get this at all.

I was thinking they were going to say new studies show that it isn't a big deal to have lead in the atmosphere. I read nothing of the sort.

Stupid idea...

12/14/2006 9:09:48 AM

wouldnt most current cars not be able to run on leaded gas?

12/14/2006 9:10:50 AM

"This worked so well, that we no longer need to do it anymore...so now we can get back to polluting."

....IS EXACTLY their mentality.


...same with hunting threatened species.....or whaling

12/14/2006 9:21:16 AM

that's not exactly the same

there are useful products or at least their used to be that came from whale hunting. the japanese are still doing it i believe and they wouldn't be if there wasn't a demand for it

hunting endangered species only happens when they're not endangered anymore and people just love the taste of spotted owl, so yeah

but leaded gasoline would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. it's obviously not necessary, obviously environmentally unsafe and would only line the coffers of those with lead interests. this will never happen.

12/14/2006 9:24:35 AM

Hmm, perhaps you could link to a real news source and not some Jack-asses blog?

It sounds to me like the EPA is considering lifting some regulations dealing with lead and this blogger ran with it, assuming all lead-related restrictions are going to be lifted.

But to put your fears at ease, modern cars CANNOT burn leaded gasoline without suffering severe damage, particularly to the catalytic converter. That's why your car specifically says everywhere on it "Unleaded Fuel Only".

12/14/2006 9:31:12 AM

didn't arsenic water pass?


mmmmmm, tasty....

12/14/2006 9:31:40 AM

Quote :

"Hmm, perhaps you could link to a real news source and not some Jack-asses blog? "

i was wondering the same thing....but does the AP release blogs?

...but to ease you worries, thats why i put a question mark in the title.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 9:39 AM. Reason : df]

12/14/2006 9:36:11 AM

leaded gas never left, it just isnt legal for use on public roads...

12/14/2006 9:41:56 AM

Maybe, aparently. Perhaps the blogger based his blog on an AP article. But for whatever reason, CNN considers this a blog, so I'm going to respect that determination and doubt the credibility of the content there-in.

That said, leaded gasoline is already readily available all across the country. Aviation fuel is leaded, confering about 130 octane.

12/14/2006 9:44:51 AM

other then "blog" in the URL, i dont see anything that clearly defines this as a blog. in fact, on the side of the page is this:

Quote :

"About the CNN Political Ticker The CNN Political Ticker provides the latest political news. To sign up for our twice daily Ticker emails, or if you have any feedback, suggestions or news tips, drop us a line at politicalticker@cnn.com. "

...that doesnt sound like a blog to me. i wouldnt go by a URL address alone...that just may have been to most convinient place for them to put their "political ticker". look at the other "political ticker stories"...they all credit reuters and AP. you can't credit one of those if you are just writing a blog about information you got from them.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 9:51 AM. Reason : df]

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 9:52 AM. Reason : df]

12/14/2006 9:50:31 AM

A victory for free markets and economic liberty over restictive nanny state legislation.

12/14/2006 10:31:09 AM

environmental/ecological health > economic liberty

12/14/2006 10:34:05 AM

^glad you agree

12/14/2006 10:44:43 AM

I guess this means I woln't be able to enjoy the smell of unburned gas anymore... lord stupidity runs rampant sometimes

12/14/2006 11:00:43 AM

Quote :

"environmental/ecological health > economic liberty"

TELL THAT TO THE SMOKERS AT MY FAVORITE BAR!!!!

12/14/2006 11:16:32 AM

People, give it up. If there was any truth to this then it would be all over the internet by now (being a week old). We would have credible sources falling from the sky. But we don't: we search, all we get are other blogs. So even if this "/POLITICS/blogs/" is not a blog, it has no independent confirmation.

Besides, like I've said, for reasons of NOT DESTROYING OUR CARS, even if leaded gasoline was legal tomorrow, no one could sell it without facing a lawsuit for damaging the customers vehicle.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/14/2006 11:21:24 AM

i think the problem extend past leaded gas, however. if they are indeed considering "doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline" then more is at stake the simply leaded gas.

12/14/2006 11:42:15 AM

do you people really think this would happen

12/14/2006 11:51:02 AM

could there be any potential decreases in the price of gasoline? seems like they would have SOME legitimate reason to "consider" doing this

12/14/2006 11:59:54 AM

yeah there's reason to 'consider' this:
"What, gas prices too high? I mean, I guess we could look into that leaded gas that pollutes much, much more as a cheaper option. Oh, what? Not a big deal anymore? That's what I thought."

12/14/2006 12:10:12 PM

would it be cheaper?

12/14/2006 12:14:03 PM

I am under the impression that most regulatory measures tend to make production costs rise.

12/14/2006 12:18:39 PM

well im sure if you remove the process that filters lead out of gasoline it would decrease production costs, but at the same time what costs would be associated with allowing all current engines to run on this gas?

also in the last 20 or however many years that the US has not used leaded gas, have their been enough technological advances in muffler and catalytic converter technology to significantly decrease the pollution that would result from going back to leaded gas?

also arent there some european countries that many would consider to be more environmentally conscious than the US that still use leaded gasoline?

12/14/2006 12:22:32 PM

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=epa+clean+air+act+lead&btnG=Search+News

The EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to review pollution standards every 5 years. The few quotes from the EPA say that this document is part of the review process.

This seems to be pointed more towards industrial sources of lead pollution. I agree with LoneShark that lead gasoline isn't coming back, even if the pollution restrictions were completely lifted. Your car won't burn leaded gas (for long) and there's no distribution system for leaded gasoline (e.g. nothing in place to keep leaded/unleaded gas separate, tank/pipe coatings and software are not lead-resistant).

Quote :

"Unless I'm misunderstanding something, they are basically saying "This worked so well, that we no longer need to do it anymore...so now we can get back to polluting"."

I think it's a little deeper than 'let's get back to polluting.' Seeing as leaded gas burning cars was the major source of lead pollution, and that source no longer exists, nor is it likely to return, I would say that the pollution controls deserve being looked at and possibly revised to take that fact into account.

^ Lead was a gasoline additive. It's not something found in gas that must be filtered out.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM. Reason : add]

12/14/2006 12:29:43 PM

interesting

12/14/2006 12:36:38 PM

Quote :

"environmental/ecological health > economic liberty"

Quote :

"TELL THAT TO THE SMOKERS AT MY FAVORITE BAR!!!!"

environmental/ecological health > economic liberty > public health

12/14/2006 12:57:22 PM

apparently all those things are greater than property rights since its "YOUR" favorite bar, and not the owner of the bar's bar

but thats a different subject

12/14/2006 1:08:20 PM

Spread cancer.......or dont save five cents on gas........cancer........gas........HMMMMM

12/14/2006 3:01:32 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: apparently all those things are greater than property rights since its "YOUR" favorite bar, and not the owner of the bar's bar but thats a different subject"

He said it was his favorite bar. What was he supposed to do--describe it as "the favorite bar"? Perhaps a "bar that I favor over all other bars"?

You're being silly.

12/14/2006 3:26:06 PM

honestly, this is one of those things i really doubt will come back...it just doesnt seem like its the common sense thing to do

12/14/2006 3:30:04 PM

yay, more autism.

12/14/2006 3:48:53 PM

anybody here every gotten cancer from leaded gasoline cause you sure seem to know all about it

12/14/2006 4:51:33 PM

Quote :

"well im sure if you remove the process that filters lead out of gasoline it would decrease production costs, but at the same time what costs would be associated with allowing all current engines to run on this gas?"

as said, lead was an additive. it raises the detonation temperature of the fuel allowing you to run higher compression ratios. The lead additive was the reason that a lot of V8's back in the day got 30mpg. Gas mileage went down when gas became unleaded and didn't come back up until more recently when the combustoin process was better understood and they have found ways to have more complete combustion.

12/14/2006 6:07:11 PM

Time for some treetwista logic trolling

12/14/2006 6:16:26 PM

time for your dad to suck some cock

12/14/2006 6:49:53 PM

leaded regular would be nice to have available for our older gas tractors and trucks. lead substitute is expensive and will gum up carburetors. it probably wouldn't sell very well anyway because most vehicles can't use it now anyway

12/14/2006 6:51:40 PM

hondaguy is right. Leaded gasoline is more efficient (energy wise) so you burn less gasoline when lead is added.

So: adding lead to the gasoline makes it more expensive because it is an extra step and an extra chemical. Similarly, people will burn less of it. As such, I doubt the oil industry will like it driving up costs and driving down consumption.

12/14/2006 9:03:56 PM

Quote :

"wouldnt most current cars not be able to run on leaded gas"

the lead destroys the catalyst element in your catalytic converter

12/14/2006 9:08:04 PM

that doesn't mean they wouldn't run on it . . . just means that emissions would be higher since the catalytic converter wasn't working.

12/15/2006 10:21:33 AM

I probably burn 1,500 gallons of low leaded fuel a year

12/15/2006 10:43:48 AM

Quote :

"that doesn't mean they wouldn't run on it . . . just means that emissions would be higher since the catalytic converter wasn't working."

Assuming that you don't care about destroying your catalytic converter, would the modern engines run as efficiently as the old engines designed around leaded gasoline? I would think that the modern engines would be calibrated to the older air-fuel ratios so simply changing the gas wouldn't provide any advantages to the modern consumer; we'd have to re-phase in cars designed around leaded gasoline. Just a thought.

12/15/2006 12:18:33 PM

So, more to the point, todays cars are not designed to take advantage of the higher octane of leaded gasoline. So, burning it destroys your catalytic converter, costs more to produce, and doesn't give you any more gas mileage. bullocks.

12/15/2006 12:21:31 PM

Leaded gas will not make a comeback.

There are still emissions controls. If you use leaded gas, you will destroy your catalytic converter in short order and fail your annual inspection. Then you'll spend $texas having it replaced.

12/15/2006 12:40:15 PM

Octane has nothing to do with why cars can't use lead.

Lead is just plainly incompatible with cat. converters.

Most motors will be fine running high octane fuel.

12/15/2006 12:42:43 PM

come on guys think about the poor CEO's of the gas and battery corporations. i mean these standards are keeping them from buy the new Mercedes-Benz SLK.

seriously think of the CEO's and majority stock holders before enacting any blood sucking liberal anti-pollution bills to protect the environment. remember when you support environmental standards you are supporting hippies and terrorists.

12/15/2006 5:46:54 PM

Quote :

"Seeing as leaded gas burning cars was the major source of lead pollution, and that source no longer exists, nor is it likely to return, I would say that the pollution controls deserve being looked at and possibly revised to take that fact into account."

12/15/2006 6:07:39 PM