Slashdot Mirror


Leaded Gas, CFCs, and the Dark Side of Progress (hackaday.com)

szczys writes: Leaded Gas did a great job of keeping engines from knocking thanks to tetra-ethyl lead. Unfortunately the fumes from the chemical are highly poisonous. R-12 is a refrigerant that revolutionized the cold storage of vaccines. It turned out to be the first of the chlorofluorocarbons which are well known (and now banned) for damaging the environment. Both are the creations of one inventor: Thomas Migley, Jr. Two deadly inventions seem like more than enough for one person, but his story ends with a third. Stricken with Polio, he invented a system to help him get in and out of bed on his own. A tragic accident ended his life when he was caught and strangled by the system he created.

184 comments

  1. No need to read TFA by cruff · · Score: 2

    The summary covers all of the main points of the article, so you won't need to read TFA.

    1. Re:No need to read TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully there's no spelling mistakes in the article, which I didn't read on your advice... ...Unlike the summary
      "well known (and no banned)"

  2. Vsauce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the summary just what Vsauce put in one of his videos?

  3. The wikipedia has the quote by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wikipedia has the most interesting quote about him in his article:

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

    ' J. R. McNeill, an environmental historian, opines that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history." '

    Anyway, it's always been a bit of an unfair slam. Leaded gasoline only became an issue when the car number went from the 7.5 million that were around when TEL was being made, to the over 100 million that were around the time that leaded ramped down in the mid 70s. The miles driven per person were also way lower back then- because most people had to get around without a car, everything was set up for that. If you had it to do all over again, you'd probably STILL use leaded gasoline until about 1955 or so. However, at least everyone knew lead was bad for you back then- not so with Freon's very hard to verify environmental impact, which wasn't understood for a lot longer.

    1. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you had it to do all over again, you'd probably STILL use leaded gasoline until about 1955 or so.

      No, no, I wouldn't. There was a conference in 1925 about how dangerous it was. They came to the wrong conclusion.

    2. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lead was only needed because the manufacturers did not want to do the metallurgy needed to make their engines work properly without it. The warning signs were all there right from the start- numerous scientists, laboratory technicians, and refinery workers died or were left with the effects of lead poisoning.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I recall correctly, the signs of lead being dangerous were there, but like the cigarette industry decades later, the companies invested in leaded gasoline fought tooth and nail to keep everyone believing lead was harmless. They would actively try to discredit and defund anyone who said otherwise and put all their political weight towards squashing any legislation that might question their official platform.

      Obviously, they weren't ultimately successful is keeping "lead is dangerous" suppressed forever, but they did delay any action to mitigate the effects (and profited off said delay).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Kohath · · Score: 0

      Also, what is the long term environmental damage from lead in gasoline? Leaded gas has been gone for a long time. Can someone point to the anything in the environment today that still shows signs of damage from leaded gasoline?

    5. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was more than just metallurgy (I assume that you are referring to the lubricating effects of the TEL on the upper valve-train of engines). The TEL was also used for its anti-knock properties, which was not really a metallurgical problem. For that it was an issue of lowering the compression ratios of the engines (i.e. lower power and mileage) and of effective combustion chamber design and/or valve/spark timing. But you're right about the warning signs being present from the beginning, although I don't think that the long-term effects of low-level exposure on public health were known at the time.

    6. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      uhh, bullshit, the anti-knock agents are needed to get a reasonable efficiency out of the engine. See, engine efficiency is strongly affected by compression ratio, and the higher the compression ratio, the more likely the engine is to knock. Hence, high-performance car engines (not your sedan or pickup) need higher octane fuels. These, of course, have crap in them to retard the speed of the flame front, and at the time, TEL was the only commercially viable product. so then we got MTBE, which we also found out was pretty toxic. Now we've got amazingly high performance polymers that survive ethanol, though I just replaced a gas tank in a 20 year old car because the ethanol brought water in that corroded it. Ethanol will eventually be replaced when realize that burning food is a dumb idea, but I have no idea what will come next. However, all of these agents have been much better for the atmosphere then would have been not using them and pumping 20-30% more CO2 into the atmosphere.

    7. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You recall correctly.

      The scientist who first noticed that lead from car pollution was actually contaminating the environment was smeared by car and gas companies. I think Cosmos has an episode about it.

    8. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    9. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      citation needed.

      i have citations that say the opposite
      this popular mechanics article from 1978 mentions amoco selling *only* unleaded premium gas. they're
      clearly telling consumers that unleaded is better https://books.google.com/books?id=qc8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=amoco+unleaded&source=bl&ots=evuFN7_4G-&sig=Cx5Ds5-WV7sKMFfmsT44VVTfTTY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicgqnIl9zJAhVL6GMKHSTYCoQQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=amoco%20unleaded&f=false

      in fact, amoco never had a leaded premium gasoline.

    10. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by TWX · · Score: 1

      The valvetrain issues were what came to mind. A friend sunk the valves on a head with soft seats due to the fuel he ran.

      There are machining techniques that can be used to reduce the propensity for premature detonation too, but they require time to be spent removing the hard edges on the dishes on the pistons and in the head chambers, or using other metal like aluminum in the head, or some combination thereof. It's possible to get 10:1 compression without knock sensors on pump gas.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      TEL was added to enhance the anti-knock characteristics, it had *absolutely nothing* to do with metallurgy. As it turned out, it worked as an effective solid lubricant but that was an aside.

            WWII may have been lost, or at least would have been greatly extended, if airplane engine performance was limited to fuels without TEL.

    12. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe average IQ was reduce and more violent behaviours increased. These effects are not going away in those who were affected so only people born after are less affected in this way. I also expect that the lead foud it's was into the soil and environment and will take along time to leave. I think leaded petrol is still used in various parts of the world.

    13. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Can someone point to the anything in the environment today that still shows signs of damage from leaded gasoline?

      Depends- possibly people. There's a few competing theories as to why violent crime fell so sharply, and one of them has to do with the sudden lack of lead exposure, especially in places with high traffic and reasonably low ventilation- cities.

      Getting rid of leaded gasoline was a very needed and necessary thing- or rather, cutting it back dramatically was.

      When cars went from relatively uncommon to extremely common, increasing by an order of magnitude, at the same time that miles driven per person year went way up, the lead went from some kind of rounding error to a problem of moderate seriousness, and it probably still has some effects today. If it had been shitcanned in the 50s, that would probably have been averted, and by then engine tech had had enough time to progress too. But once it was enshrined in practice it took a long time to weed out, as the other comments have pointed out.

    14. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      You mean besides the human beings who, as a result of heavy childhood exposure, grew up to be more violent, more impulsive, more aggressive, and less intelligent?

      Sure. Lead emitted from cars settle onto the ground, and kind of just sits there. It doesn't biodegrade, it's not soluble enough to wash away especially easily, and it's heavy enough to stay where it lands -- until organisms like us end up ingesting and sequestering it, and that seems to take a LONG time, much longer than the 20-odd years since it was banned in the US.

      I don't have time this afternoon to look up numbers, but as I recall, you'll still find highly elevated levels of lead in surface soil near highways that saw a lot of traffic during the leaded-gas era. I don't expect the US to pony up a few trillion bucks to remediate all that soil any time soon.

    15. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History_of_controversy_and_phase-out

      There are numerous citations in the first paragraph that you can follow and browse at your leisure.

    16. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by careysub · · Score: 4, Interesting

      citation needed.

      i have citations that say the opposite

      This in no way "says the opposite". In fact it reinforces the point that some people (like the good people at Amoco) chose a safer (and probably more costly) means of increasing the octane rating. The rest of the industry just kept pushing the cheap toxic lead solution.

      Interestingly as late as 1983 it was a personal priority for Reagan's first EPA head, Anne Gorsuch Burford, to try to remove all caps on lead content in gasoline, at at time that the evidence of harm was staggering.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    17. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You mean besides the human beings who, as a result of heavy childhood exposure, grew up to be more violent, more impulsive, more aggressive, and less intelligent?

      That's a big problem, but not really "long term environmental damage". It's not something that will be seen in the environment in the future.

      Sure. Lead emitted from cars settle onto the ground, and kind of just sits there. It doesn't biodegrade, it's not soluble enough to wash away especially easily, and it's heavy enough to stay where it lands -- until organisms like us end up ingesting and sequestering it, and that seems to take a LONG time, much longer than the 20-odd years since it was banned in the US.

      I don't have time this afternoon to look up numbers, but as I recall, you'll still find highly elevated levels of lead in surface soil near highways that saw a lot of traffic during the leaded-gas era. I don't expect the US to pony up a few trillion bucks to remediate all that soil any time soon.

      That's "long term". Is it "environmental damage"? Lead in the soil that causes no measurable effects can't really be said to cause persistent measurable "damage".

      The point is that the environment seems to have largely recovered from leaded gasoline (hasn't it?). The environment is resilient.

    18. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      And here we are today with most small piston aircraft still using almost identical engines, still burning leaded gasoline. So called "100LL" (low lead) contains more lead than car gas ever did.

    19. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Cosmos did have almost an entire episode (or a big part of it) devoted to this. This guy was doing research on determining the age of rocks and ran into problems when he wanted to created a lead-free lab environment. One thing led to another and he figured out lead was everywhere because of the leaded gas. From there, he realized this thing was making us sick and fought a long hard fight to bring this to the public. His R&D was directly or indirectly funded by the oil industry which promptly pulled his funding. He was a poster child for following the data and designing great tests to make the data drive conclusive.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campaign_against_lead_poisoning

    20. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by careysub · · Score: 1

      ...TEL was the only commercially viable product.

      Tell that to Amoco, which never leaded its premium grade gasoline.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    21. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean besides the human beings who, as a result of heavy childhood exposure, grew up to be more violent, more impulsive, more aggressive, and less intelligent?

      That's a big problem, but not really "long term environmental damage". It's not something that will be seen in the environment in the future.

      That depends. Some of those people are now Trump voters, and might in turn try to elect someone who will enact policies that cause a wide variety of other environmental problems.

    22. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >TEL was added to enhance the anti-knock characteristics, it had *absolutely nothing* to do with metallurgy. As it turned out, it worked as an effective solid lubricant but that was an aside.

      Incorrect. Unleaded fuel requires hardened valve seats.

      Think I'm lying?

      Ask anyone that tried out propane as an alternative fuel in the 70s. Leaded engine = premature death. Unleaded engine = drives without damage. Propane has such a high anti-knock ratio that even racing fuel doesn't touch it, so it certainly wasn't (only) that.

    23. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by avandesande · · Score: 1

      This only half of it- the other were advances in cracking/refining where the could reform paraffins to isomers with higher octane ratings.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    24. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by toadlife · · Score: 0

      Ethanol will eventually be replaced when realize that burning food is a dumb idea, but I have no idea what will come next.

      Electrification of cars is next.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    25. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      All depends on which pumps.

      Alcohol is the cure for this (and every other) problem.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Well the ozone hole is still there, so I'd have to say the jury is still out on R12.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    27. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Cramer · · Score: 2

      Ethanol is not "food". While the US may be wasting corn on it, most of the world isn't that stupid. (The US has "too much" corn, and can afford to be stupid with it.)

    28. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Wrong...an octane booster (which was cheaper than just better refining - one should always follow the money) was required to eliminate knock and ping due to self-ignition from high compression.
      . High compression gives better thermodynamic efficiency, but higher temperatures (and due to that, increases NOX emissions). No metallurgy will fix knocking - it ruins engines no matter what you make them out of, and wastes energy by pushing on a piston that is still on the upstroke.
      Those of us who live in farmland think NOX is just fine - free fixed nitrogen. Those idiots who built LA in a permanent temperature inversion feel differently of course. Emissions standards jammed down our throats by those turkeys created quite a bit of externalized cost to the rest of us in increased fuel consumption due to lowered efficiency, caused by having to lower compression ratios to reduce octane requirements and reduce NOX. We've learned since how to do more with less, but there was that time - probably before most here had licences (or raced, as I did), when it was a pretty big deal. Diesel got let off the hook (follow the money again - big trucks and trucking) and doesn't have the knock issue due to fuel injection timing such that it's a smoother burn than self ignition on the compression stroke, combined with a slower burning fuel. But the tradeoff is higher NOX, higher particulates (which are truly nasty on the lungs) unless all cost savings are negated by fancy emissions control schemes - like the ones VW tried to cheat on due to, you guessed it, follow the money. You were just following the wrong money - a pittance compared to the issues I mentioned.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    29. Re: The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have citations that say the opposite

      Huh? Your citation agrees with the original.

      Did you not understand it?

    30. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So short term greed, results in interesting tit bits like this "A 1994 study had indicated that the concentration of lead in the blood of the U.S. population had dropped 78% from 1976 to 1991". So prior to that we were blithely creating the lead head generations and tea baggers and a massive crime wave. The greater the exposure the more likely they are to be crazy Gopers. How many people ended up dying as a result of that greed, that went on to fuel sic even more greed driven stupidity. The lead might be diminishing but the damage has been done in many decision makers and bad decisions result which cause even more pain, suffering and death. Now if only a few more of them would get tangled up in their own machinations and cease to be a problem for the rest of us. Seriously you can really see the impact of lead poisoning in the current structure of our society and the decisions being made by those most affected by lead poisoning.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    31. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That's pretty unlikely, seeing how they're long dead.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the jury really out on that? Everything I heard back in the day involved the idea that the CFCs would be there for a long time dicking it up, but that by stopping the addition of them it wouldn't totally fuxxor it. I know that a lot of climate science is controversial, but the ability of Freon to devastate ozone isn't that up for debate, I'm pretty sure.

    33. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Yes, toxic heavy metal contamination is usually deemed "environmental damage". The environment is resilient, but not impervious to harm.

    34. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

      Ethanol is better than food.

    35. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Actually I think at this point, the insanity is coming from drugs, legal and illegal.

    36. Re:The wikipedia has the quote by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Amoco made a lead-free premium gasoline. But they did not promote it on the basis of environmental safety; their commercials promoted the fact that it meant more miles between engine tuneups (because sparkplugs didn't get fouled with lead) and longer muffler life.

  4. Re:JUSTICE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardly. Got to break some eggs to make an omelette. Polio is certainly nothing to gloat over.

  5. Read TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Read the article, author didn't know difference between "effect" and "affect"

    Perhaps this is why he seems to forgive Midgley for being "creative"

  6. Aviation Gas is still leaded by mdsolar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Small airports next to elementary schools are probably creating future violent criminals.

    1. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, give me a credible source that there's a measurable impact.

    2. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're right actually; I have managed to avoid a life of violent crime but my preschool was about 150m from a runway. I think about violence at least once a day, and crime more often than that!

    3. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Small airports next to elementary schools are probably creating future violent criminals.

      That depends. Main small engine aircraft now use unleaded avgas instead of the leaded variety.

    4. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by quantizationnoise · · Score: 1

      It's true most AVGAS is still leaded. But aviation fuel is a tiny percentage of the total gasoline burned, and it's mostly being dispersed above the ground so by time you get a whiff of it, it's probably too diluted to do any harm.

    5. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong. They use 100LL, for "low lead", which isn't really low at all. All standard small-engine aircraft use this fuel, unless it's some "experimental" aircraft with a Subaru automotive engine or something.

    6. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      You, of course, are correct. I should have said low lead, since 100LL is 1/2 the lead of 100/130. There are viable replacements for 100LL in the US (already approved in other countries). It just seems the US doesn't want to let them be adopted for wide spread use here. For instance, we looked at testing other fuel samples for our fleet and received, by mistake a load of 91/96 (the brown military fuel) and it actually worked quite well. Why it isn't normally available, I have no clue. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get it, since. :(

    7. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      I agree mostly, but for takeoffs near daycare or kindergarten, there is a problem.

    8. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      There is a thing called Avgas 91/96 UL (unleaded) but it is uncommon compared to Avgas 100 LL ("low"-lead), and probably incompatible with many engines.
      Rotax engines (very common on ultralight aircraft) can use it, but because of the low availability of unleaded avgas they often run on automotive fuel (mogas) or 100LL instead.

    9. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      There is a thing called Avgas 91/96 UL (unleaded) but it is uncommon compared to Avgas 100 LL ("low"-lead), and probably incompatible with many engines.
      Rotax engines (very common on ultralight aircraft) can use it, but because of the low availability of unleaded avgas they often run on automotive fuel (mogas) or 100LL instead.

      I've actually used 91/96UL, but it is hard to get. Seemed to perform just as well as 100UL. Of course, a lot would depend on the type of aircraft and particularly the valves. We tested it on four different aircraft for about three months and pulled the heads off and could not detect any difference compared with the regular avgass.

      I'd be a little leery using mogas, unless it was for personal use. Too much risk in using an unapproved fuel for commercial purposes.

    10. Re:Aviation Gas is still leaded by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They use 100LL, for "low lead", which isn't really low at all. All standard small-engine aircraft use this fuel, unless it's some "experimental" aircraft with a Subaru automotive engine or something.

      Actually, STCs are available for many standard small-engine aircraft to allow them to run on auto fuel: http://www.autofuelstc.com/app...

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
  7. UnLeaded Gas by tiberus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This article sparked the memory of wondering why we had to pay more for unleaded gas... Apparently it was expensive to remove the naturally occurring lead from the refined gasoline.

    Oh, wait . . .

    1. Re:UnLeaded Gas by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Informative

      This article sparked the memory of wondering why we had to pay more for unleaded gas... Apparently it was expensive to remove the naturally occurring lead from the refined gasoline.

      because instead of lead, they had to add other chemicals to raise octane ratings to reduce knocking. Those chemicals cost more.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:UnLeaded Gas by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      This article sparked the memory of wondering why we had to pay more for unleaded gas... Apparently it was expensive to remove the naturally occurring lead from the refined gasoline.

      Oh, wait . . .

      The real reason you had to pay extra for unleaded gas is that there was no alternative. The lead was added to the gas, it never had to be removed from it.

    3. Re:UnLeaded Gas by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      There were always alternatives, just that they were uneconomical. Petrol has always been a blend of products. You could run a car just fine on a single petrol component, but as is the usual with this sort of thing that single component was also the most expensive to make. Two key petrol components are often referred to as liquid gold in refining because their ideal properties allow refiners to fix any stuffed up petrol blend simply by adding more, and also because they are very costly to make; alkylate, and reformate. The first cat-reformer came online shortly after the war, the first alkylation unit came online long before, not long after TEL started becoming popular as a gasoline blend. But good things are always bad for you. Another great octane booster is benzine which is also now restricted.

    4. Re:UnLeaded Gas by Cramer · · Score: 2

      And/Or blends with more valuable (rare) distillates. TEL, MTBE, etc. are chemical hacks to prevent the lower grade compounds from igniting and burning as readily.

    5. Re:UnLeaded Gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason we now have to pay more for non-ethanol (gasohol) gasoline. Greed. :)

    6. Re:UnLeaded Gas by slew · · Score: 1

      This article sparked the memory of wondering why we had to pay more for unleaded gas... Apparently it was expensive to remove the naturally occurring lead from the refined gasoline.

      because instead of lead, they had to add other chemicals to raise octane ratings to reduce knocking. Those chemicals cost more.

      In addition to costing more, some of them (like MBTE) were arguably worse for the environment... Damn you CARB (California air resources board)...

    7. Re:UnLeaded Gas by DesertNomad · · Score: 1

      Not sure your point here. The amount of naturally occurring lead in gasoline is nearly immeasurable - if there was lead in gas it would quickly make inoperable the catalytic converters in modern cars.

    8. Re:UnLeaded Gas by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      instead of lead, they had to add other chemicals to raise octane ratings to reduce knocking. Those chemicals cost more.

      Some of them also had other issues - like being toxic in other ways, or causing other problems.

      MTBE (the first big tetraethyl lead replacement), for instance, has leaked out of storage tanks and contaminated ground water. It produces a foul taste in microgram concentrations, so even if it turns out not to be hazardous, a little can make a lot of ground water undrinkable. There are claims it causes or exacerbates asthma in the concentrations people were exposed to when filling their own cars at self-service stations (let alone the exposure a gas station worker might experience.) It hasn't (yet?) been shown to cause cancer, but cancer takes a while and research continues.

      Ethanol (and methanol moreso, when added by unscrupulous gasoline suppliers) attacked the rubber in fuel lines (causing fuel leaks), dissolved plastic carburetor floats (causing first rich mixtures, then flooding, then gasoline spillage over the engine), removed protective internal coatings in fuel systems (causing corrosion, leading to both gas leaks and clogging), and dissolved gasket sealing compounds (leading to blown head gaskets and other leakage issues). This resulted in a lot of engine damage and fires (sometimes fatal) in older cars when mandated ethanol was first added to fuel supplies. Engines and fuel systems had to be redesigned to survive it. (They're still mostly rated for no more than 85% ethanol in the fuel mix. You need a little oil in the fuel to lubricate a number of moving parts that are constantly washed by the fuel.)

      (Eco-regulators knew the fires were happening, but didn't do anything about it: It was perceived as getting the older, more polluting, cars off the road, and what did a few fatalities and millions of dollars of losses among the poorest drivers matter in the face of cleaning up the air? Hurrah!)

      The redesign also involved pricey modifications to the valves and their guides. Leaded gasoline deposits a thin coating of lead on exhaust valve stems. This lubricates them where they rub against the valve guides (typically bronze). Exhaust valves get HOT, so lubricating them any other way is problematic. But any sticking causes immediate and major problems, from a "burned valve" due to hot exhaust eroding any leaking point, to a stuck valve being hit by the piston, breaking both and causing the engine to suddenly fail.

      The ubiquity of lead-containing fuel additives let the engine designers get away with a simple solution for much of a century. Removing the lead meant they had to solve the hard problem a harder way - and that older engines would self-destruct if fed unleaded gas.

      This is why aviation gas is still leaded: Sudden engine stoppage while airborne is a disaster, and getting a new engine design approved by the FAA is akin to getting a new drug approved by the FDA when it comes to cost and red tape. Most commercial flight is jets these days, so piston-engine lead pollution is miniscule, making it hard for the government to justify the cost of mandating the designing, approving, and (for existing planes) retrofitting of replacement engines.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:UnLeaded Gas by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      MTBE related to asthma is interesting, given the increase in asthma over the past 30 years. It'd be interesting to see what the correlations are. I'm sure lead removal was necessary, but the other additives they needed to use are not necessarily a better option, just a different trade-off. Removing gas engines entirely is probably the right answer to automotive air pollution, but then you're trading that pollution for electrical production pollution.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    10. Re:UnLeaded Gas by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I think he was being sarcastic: at the time it was presented as "oh, but we have to remove the lead, it costs MORE!", when in reality they were just charging more for not adding it.

  8. Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by mdsolar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The evidence is now very strong that leaded gasoline was responsible for much past violent crime. http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

    1. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wow! That's amazing because I see the same evidence used to justify not vaccinating kids...

      Correlation does NOT imply causation. I.e. Just because something changed, doesn't mean it caused something else to happen...

    2. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The vast majority of high quality correlations are also causations. Sometimes a common cause for both can confuse matters, but in the vast majority of cases you can trust a correlation to be a causation. This is not true if the correlation was either falsified or just not there in the first place, obviously. The causation can also go in the opposite direction of what you expect, but it seems unlikely that falling crime leads to the banning of leaded petrol.

      The correlation between phasing out leaded petrol and falling crime holds in many countries which banned lead at different times. It is highly unlikely that some other cause happened at the right time in all the countries.

      The causality itself is also quite uncontroversial: It is known that exposure to lead means lower average IQ, and lower average IQ means more violence.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Correlation does NOT imply causation

      It does, actually. It doesn't *prove* causation, but a correlation can easily imply causation. Then people need to go do studies and tests and figure out if that relationship is causal, incidental, or if both are caused by a third factor. This is called science.

      And yes! Gather enough anecdotal incidents or single data points and you have, gasp, data!
      ,

    4. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on! The Roman Empire used lead to seal all their wine jugs, and there's no history of violence in the Roman Empire... oh, wait... never mind! (Caligula.. just a dude that loved to party!)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    5. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation shown in dozens of natural experiments where you can accurately predict the drop in crime by when leaded gas was phased out in the state or country does imply causation. Not to mention detailed understanding of the physical causes.

      In other words, "correlation does not imply causation" is not a magic fucking talisman that allows you to avoid facing facts.

    6. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by bhiestand · · Score: 2

      I'm not arguing the point (because I agree on this one), but your post reminded me of Spurious Correlations.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    7. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The vast majority of high quality correlations are also causations. Sometimes a common cause for both can confuse matters, but in the vast majority of cases you can trust a correlation to be a causation.

      That is ABSOLUTELY false.

      I mean, seriously -- just think about what you said for a minute. There is an insanely large number of possible datasets in the world. And if you can match up any dataset with any other dataset, you'll have a similarly insanely large number of high correlations that just happen by random chance.

      That vast majority of such "correlations" are absolutely meaningless.

      If we take your statement to be true, we'd have to conclude that most of the correlations "discovered" here are likely to be causal: US spending on science causes suicides by suffocation (or the reverse, r=0.9979), per capita margarine consumption causes variations in the divorce rate in Maine (r=0.9926), annual number of drownings by falling out of a fishing boat causes the marriage rate in Kentucky to go up and down (r=0.95), per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese causes more civil engineering doctorates to be awarded (r=0.96), etc., etc.

      The correlation between phasing out leaded petrol and falling crime holds in many countries which banned lead at different times. It is highly unlikely that some other cause happened at the right time in all the countries.

      See, now you're starting to get there. When we can track a correlation and match it up with the cause in time or using some other variable which influences both, the causality likelihood starts to increase.

      The causality itself is also quite uncontroversial: It is known that exposure to lead means lower average IQ, and lower average IQ means more violence.

      And now we get even further along -- the causality mechanism might actually make sense.

      I'm NOT arguing against this particular theory, by the way. I'm just pointing out that your assertion that the "vast majority" of "high quality" correlations imply causation is ridiculous. If you just allow any dataset to be matched with any other dataset in the world, the vast majority of correlations will be stupid random nonsense. That's the reason the "p-hacking" is a useless statistical practice that will inevitably result in false relationships.

      It's only when you start tracking other variables related to the correlation and establish likely causality through other reasonable mechanisms and data in other variables that you can start proving something.

    8. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by swb · · Score: 1

      Is the evidence good enough for anyone to sue for damages?

    9. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of. If I heard two Bob's committed murder I wouldn't think much of it. If I had a random sample population of 500 Bob's and 499 of them committed murder I'd be looking real real hard at anyone named Bob.

      The lead gasoline bit has what I would call very very strong correlation. The roll-out occurred in different times in different cities and countries and the pattern followed pretty well across the board. It doesn't bear any resemblance at all to the vaccination bit.

      And it tracks with exactly what we know lead does to someone when inserted. Makes you dumber and lowers inhibitions which are pretty good crime drivers. There is no safe amount of lead, however much you get in you, you are that much damaged.

      So the idea that lead exposure could push a few people on the edge of criminality into full-on criminality is pretty well founded. Couple that with very strong correlation and it's a good case. Stronger case really than almost all sociological research I've seen.

    10. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I'm NOT arguing against this particular theory, by the way. I'm just pointing out that your assertion that the "vast majority" of "high quality" correlations imply causation is ridiculous.

      It could also be that 'high quality' is a different standard to him than a simple high r value. As he mentions, the correlation not only holds a high r value at a macro level, but when you start going micro - looking at individual states and and times, the correlation is still there. I remember that they tracked the beginning of the crime spikes as well. So the same time delay was valid from the start of use of TEL, adjusted for amounts, and crime spiking, and the same delay from the cessation of use and crime dropping.

      There are even theories out there that lead doesn't just lower intelligence - it specifically attacks the 'moderation' part of the brain.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    11. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by sjames · · Score: 1

      As long as you ignore that the vaccination rates and violence or autism rates don't correlate particularly well.

    12. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The causality itself is also quite uncontroversial: It is known that exposure to lead means lower average IQ, and lower average IQ means more violence.

      That would seem pretty simple to test. All you have to do is look at the IQ scores over time (controlling for changing difficulty of the tests). If your hypothesis is correct, then the rate at which IQ scores were increasing should have increased after the 1970s when leaded gasoline was phased out.

      A quick Google search turns out that the rate at which IQ has been increasing has been pretty constant. There is no characteristic jump in scores in the Americas after the 1970s when leaded gasoline was phased out. Indicating your hypothesis is false. In fact, aside from Africa, the rate at which IQ scores have been increasing has slowed down slightly since the 1970s. This is actually a negative correlation with your hypothesis, meaning if we are to assume the mechanism you describe is correct, leaded gas was actually helping to increase IQ scores, not depressing them.

    13. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by amorsen · · Score: 1

      There are 10 data points in most of those. They are not high quality correlations. Give me something with a few hundred data points at least.

      And yes, everything Firethorn wrote.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    14. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The correlation of reduced lead in the environment and reduced violent behavior is a lot more plausible, and a lot more testable.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by amorsen · · Score: 1

      That site reinforces my point. Its examples of correlations suffer from way too few data points, and even then most of the correlations have a really lousy r-value.

      I have never seen a high quality spurious correlation without fraud or misuse of statistics being involved. The lectures you can find on correlation vs. causation use horrible ones that wouldn't survive 5 minutes of scrutiny.

      If correlation does not equal causation, why can't someone find a good counter-example?

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    16. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      The strong evidence is demonstrated nerological damage from lead.

    17. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      RTFA. The strong evidence is from medicine.

    18. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      There are 10 data points in most of those. They are not high quality correlations. Give me something with a few hundred data points at least.

      You completely miss the point. Those "correlations" are jokes, of course. The point is that you can choose an arbitrarily high threshold, and you can always find random correlations to meet it. There's just too much possible data in the universe.

      Think about it this way. Take a million random datasets. You could easily generate a million sets of data from all sorts of everyday measurements or combinations of measurements. Heck, you could even just generate a million RANDOM datasets. If you check correlation between any two of those, that's a trillion different possible places for correlation. If you say that you want a p value of 0.001, that's a BILLION correlations that hit that threshold, just by random chance.

      And you say, but that's not a "high quality" one -- well, ya got a billion to pick from, and I'll bet that you can find plenty which will satisfy your threshold.

      Remember that you originally stated ONLY correlation would imply causation in the "vast majority" of cases. But it seems when you want "high quality," what you really mean is additional evidence of causation that goes beyond a basic correlation -- that is, introducing additional variables, additional datasets, explanation of mechanism that correlates with extra variables, etc. That's all well and good, and I completely agreed with you that that should be the standard.

      That is -- you need evidence of causation or possible explanation of mechanism or something like that. Then, in addition to a strong correlation, you can begin establishing causality. If you only have correlation and not those other things, the vast majority of random correlations between any two datasets will be meaningless. That's a simple fact... there's too many possible ways of dividing up the world into data for there to be any other possible outcome.

      And if you don't believe what I'm saying, for gosh sake, please don't do any scientific research or anything else involving stats. Misunderstanding of how often seeming "high quality" correlations can occur is the fundamental reason for so many of those metastudies recently that say, "Gee, so we tried to replicate 100 of the top studies in field X, and most of them failed to replicate."

    19. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      It could also be that 'high quality' is a different standard to him than a simple high r value. As he mentions, the correlation not only holds a high r value at a macro level, but when you start going micro - looking at individual states and and times, the correlation is still there. I remember that they tracked the beginning of the crime spikes as well. So the same time delay was valid from the start of use of TEL, adjusted for amounts, and crime spiking, and the same delay from the cessation of use and crime dropping.

      I think you missed the part of my post when I said I was NOT questioning this particular association. Let's try again: I AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT LEAD AND CRIME SEEM TO BE CAUSALLY RELATED HISTORICALLY.

      My argument was about the general assertion that the "vast majority" of "high quality" possible correlations that might exist in the universe are causal. No matter how "high quality" your standard is, I guarantee you that this statement is false. From a practical standpoint, there are an infinite number of possible ways of measuring and dividing up the world into data. And if you test any dataset against another, you'll end up with that practically infinite number times itself of possible correlations.

      The reality is that we need to judge the validity of a correlation by looking at other factors that can establish causality. Part of it is the sort of robustness that you mention, but that robustness often only can come out of the introduction of many other variables (often not a strict "correlation" that you could create a valid test for how "high quality" it is -- it becomes a judgment call). And, more importantly, at some point you usually need to start dealing with a causal mechanism actually potentially connecting the two things.

      If you demand larger datasets with more robust correlations, that just makes the pool of potentially large datasets that could exist in the universe even larger. There's basically no situation possible where the "vast majority" of possible correlations to any normally understood mathematical standard are also causal. There's just too much data in the universe.

    20. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1
      Let's try it again for the slow-minded... from my last post:

      I'm NOT arguing against this particular theory, by the way.

      I actually agree with this theory. I disagree with the general assertion that the "vast majority" of correlations are also causal. That's just statistical poppycock.

    21. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Your point on correlations is not incorrect. It is just that the evidence for causation does not come from correlation.

    22. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by amorsen · · Score: 1

      If it is so easy to find billions of high quality correlations, surely someone can come up with an example?

      Misunderstanding of how often seeming "high quality" correlations can occur is the fundamental reason for so many of those metastudies recently that say, "Gee, so we tried to replicate 100 of the top studies in field X, and most of them failed to replicate."

      No. The primary reason for those problems is human error. Misuse of statistics, experimental problems, hand-picking of data, that kind of thing.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    23. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Correlation is evidence of a sort for causation, in the sense that lack of correlation suggests lack of causation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      When a computer causes pseudo random numbers to be displayed, would there be a correlation to suggest the cause?

    25. Re:Reagan Crime Wave caused by lead by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you plot two things that show no correlation, they're unlikely to be causally connected. Therefore, two things that are correlated are more likely to be causally connected than two things that aren't correlated. That's evidence. It's not good evidence, but it's evidence.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. Is there a dark side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    to the improvement of life for millions of people? Tetraethyl lead is a small speedbump on the road to a bright future of advanced chemistry. The global car industry is a marvel. The tree huggers need to bugger off. What Henry Ford said one hundred years ago ring s truer than ever today.

    "I will build a motor car for the great multitude...constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise...so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one-and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces."

    Henry Ford.

    1. Re:Is there a dark side by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And thus, the Pinto was produced...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Is there a dark side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure what correlation you find to tree-huggers here. Other than that some folk are always trying to fine a way to vilify them even if it makes no sense.

      I imagine that pretty much every true psychopathic axe-murders-on-the-side ravage-the-earth-industrialist still prefers not to be poisoned or murdered in the street.

      Chemistry would not have stopped or even slowed without Tetraethyl gasoline. An application of ethics would have had it created, learned about, then discarded in a lab.

    3. Re:Is there a dark side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So sayeth our Ford.

    4. Re:Is there a dark side by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      to the improvement of life for millions of people? Tetraethyl lead is a small speedbump on the road to a bright future of advanced chemistry. The global car industry is a marvel. The tree huggers need to bugger off. What Henry Ford said one hundred years ago ring s truer than ever today.

      Except that it was the tree huggers who wanted to remove lead from gas for all of the environmental and health reasons. What actually caused the lead to be removed had nothing to do with that. It was the EPA requirement that cars have a catalytic converter to meet emission standards ultimately got rid of leaded fuels since lead ruins the catalytic converter.

    5. Re:Is there a dark side by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      to the improvement of life for millions of people? Tetraethyl lead is a small speedbump on the road to a bright future of advanced chemistry. The global car industry is a marvel. The tree huggers need to bugger off. What Henry Ford said one hundred years ago ring s truer than ever today.

      Except that it was the tree huggers who wanted to remove lead from gas for all of the environmental and health reasons. What actually caused the lead to be removed had nothing to do with that. It was the EPA requirement that cars have a catalytic converter to meet emission standards ultimately got rid of leaded fuels since lead ruins the catalytic converter.

      You're splitting hairs now - the "tree huggers" would also be responsible for the drive to reduce emissions via catalytic converters. The EPA exists as a result of pressure, it didn't just spring up out of nowhere.

    6. Re:Is there a dark side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead industry executives deciding to poison literally the entire population of the United States of America with something that they knew for a fact is a neurotoxin for three entire generations in the name of profit and convenience (and then stopping only because the proof of its horrible effects grew too large to ignore) is, indeed, a "dark side."

      The willingness of capitalists to not only ignore the externalities of industrial activity, but to spend more than it would cost to remedy them in the first place fighting measures that take account of these externalities, isn't just *a* dark side, it's THE dark side of capitalism.

    7. Re:Is there a dark side by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      You know what else Henry Ford is quoted as having said?

      "I know who caused the war (World War I)...the German-Jewish bankers! I have the evidence here. Facts! I can't give out the facts now, because I haven't got them all yet, but I'll have them soon."

      Just sayin', it not like we should blindly accept every pearl of wisdom that dropped off ol' HF's lips or anything.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    8. Re:Is there a dark side by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Pinto was bad engineering - just like bugs in code. Sometimes it happens.

  10. ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You should remember that Thomas Migley was foremost a scientist, and quite representative of the hubris and single-mindedness of scientists. When he advocated for the safety of leaded gasoline, he wasn't lying for financial gain, he was doing so because he believed it. The scientists protecting you from ozone holes or lead or snake oil are indistinguishable from the scientists that create the ozone holes or leaded gasoline in the first place, or the scientists that create better cancer treatments; it's only in hindsight that you know who was right.

    So, when scientists tell you how to live your life or tell you that the science is settled and you should just do what they tell you, just remember how this guy died: A tragic accident ended his life when he was caught and strangled by the system he created.

    1. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's only in hindsight that you know who was right.

      Actually, sometimes it is very clear who's right up front, especially if the one being "right" had valid experiments to back up their claims. However, if you mean it only becomes clear who's right after more studies are done (i.e. hindsight = more scientific study) then what you say is true, sometimes....

    2. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cautionary note here, kids - scientists and especially engineers (the applications guys) are in the business of pushing the envelope, so mistakes are inherent in the process. Whether it is building a longer bridge (Tacoma Narrows) or making a nonflammable refrigerant (CFCs), you take your best shot with what you know at the time. This includes coders, which is why we keep finding security holes in critical software systems. There is no solution, it's in the nature of the "progress" game, but we can try to be objective about finding faults and not hang onto dangerous technologies just because of ego.

    3. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists shot my husband and kidnapped my son. For science.

      Wait, no, that was Fallout 4.

    4. Re:ah, scientists by dywolf · · Score: 1

      variation on the 'science was wrong before' myth.
      0/10 points.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Midgley (note the spelling) was not a scientist, he was an engineer. And he knew the dangers of TEL, and was deliberately concealing those dangers. But you are right about his hubris and single-mindedness, though.

    6. Re:ah, scientists by PPH · · Score: 2

      Back off, man. I'm a scientist.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:ah, scientists by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      So, when scientists tell you how to live your life or tell you that the science is settled and you should just do what they tell you, just remember how this guy died: A tragic accident ended his life when he was caught and strangled by the system he created.

      Okay. And after I've remembered it, then what? Ignore all science because this one guy was hoist with his own mechanism? Or listen to all science, but just bear in mind that future information might contradict it? Or should I toss a coin for each bit of science I hear?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    8. Re:ah, scientists by zmooc · · Score: 1

      When he advocated for the safety of leaded gasoline, he wasn't lying for financial gain, he was doing so because he believed it. The scientists protecting you from ozone holes or lead or snake oil are indistinguishable from the scientists that create the ozone holes or leaded gasoline in the first place, or the scientists that create better cancer treatments; it's only in hindsight that you know who was right.

      When he was advocating the safety of leaded gasoline, that almost certainly wasn't science. It would even back then have been easy to see that. You can very well know who was or is right without hindsight.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    9. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Midgley was probably insane from lead poisoning by no later than 1922, well before TEL went into production. The victims at the TEL factor who did not die and who were not totally incapacitated were characterized by extreme risk taking and lack of consideration for the well being of others, as well as bursts of destructive violence directed at themselves or others.

    10. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you learn how to apply the scientific method yourself, then stop believing everything some jackass in a white coat tells you.

    11. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hubris and single-mindedness are common across all vocations. It is a human vice, not particular to science.

      Further, it seems to increase with wealth and power. Politicians and wealthy corporate executives are rife with these vices.

      You can see extremes of arrogance among the poor too, such as, for example, the Biblical prophets, who were so insanely arrogant that they believed they had special knowledge of the mind of God himself. This arrogance they managed to pass on to multiple generations of religious leaders, as well.

    12. Re:ah, scientists by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      So, when scientists tell you how to live your life or tell you that the science is settled and you should just do what they tell you,

      When the science is settled though - when the vast majority of research is all pointing in one direction, don't ignore it just because it's something you don't want to face. Your freedom is not absolute, other people have to live on this planet with you.

      The scientists are totally distinguishable over time, the method converges on truth.

    13. Re:ah, scientists by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      How about you learn how to apply the scientific method yourself, then stop believing everything some jackass in a white coat tells you.

      Yes absolutely, we must all personally verify all science. That is a totally workable system.

    14. Re:ah, scientists by slew · · Score: 1

      You should remember that Thomas Migley was foremost a scientist, and quite representative of the hubris and single-mindedness of scientists. When he advocated for the safety of leaded gasoline, he wasn't lying for financial gain, he was doing so because he believed it. The scientists protecting you from ozone holes or lead or snake oil are indistinguishable from the scientists that create the ozone holes or leaded gasoline in the first place, or the scientists that create better cancer treatments; it's only in hindsight that you know who was right.

      So, when scientists tell you how to live your life or tell you that the science is settled and you should just do what they tell you, just remember how this guy died: A tragic accident ended his life when he was caught and strangled by the system he created.

      Although potentially generally true in abstract, in the case of Mr. Midgley, he was definitely advocating leaded gasoline for *profit*.

      The TEL (tetra-ethyl-lead) anti-knock additive was patentable (the use and manufacturing techniques), where the other leading additive contender ethanol was most certainly not patentable. Mr. Midgley may or may not have believed that TEL was "safe-enough", but he and his boss Charles Kettering basically minted GM a small fortune as part of it's 50% stake in the Ethyl Corporation (formed with Standard Oil aka ESSO) which was formed to take the patented TEL to market.

      For those that don't understand the subtleties of the function of TEL in gasoline, you should at least understand that TEL combusts to form Lead in the engine which will eventually degrade its performance**. To combat this, TEL needs to be combined with scavenger solvents like EDB (ethylene dibromide) to make sure that the lead leaves the exhaust pipe, but EDB causes some its own set of engine corrosion problems (forms acids which corrode spark plugs, mufflers, pistons rings) and is a ozone depleting chemical. This whole thing is akin to a "I don't know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she'll die" problem. Basically, the whole TEL thing was a rube-goldberg disaster that was foisted on the world by GM and Esso when both of them knew that ethanol would have done the job. They knew that the TEL additive was spewing lead into the environment from the get go as the scavenger solvents required to make it work were designed to get the lead out of the engine through the tailpipe (and into the environment).

      ** this totally independent of a catalytic converter getting coated with lead and not working which is eventually the thing that killed TEL...

    15. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Although potentially generally true in abstract, in the case of Mr. Midgley, he was definitely advocating leaded gasoline for *profit*.

      Midgley was employed by an employer, he received rewards from his employer, he filed patents, and he beat the drum for his inventions. If his patents made his employers money, he likely got bonuses and possibly stock. The more his inventions were noticed by others, the more citations and scientific rewards he received, as well as research grants. That is exactly how the vast majority of other scientists on this planet work and are rewarded.

      In addition, you are making the common mistake of assuming that just because someone profits from something, all their motivations can be attributed to profit. In fact, almost everybody profits from whatever they are advocating: heads of environmental non-profits profit from advocating for the environment, church officials profit from charitable work, and scientists profit from whatever scientific research they are working on.

      So, my point is that the knee-jerk analysis that Midgley caused this harm because he was somehow more financially greedy than other scientists is wrong. Midgley is typical of scientists and their motivations.

    16. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      The scientists are totally distinguishable over time, the method converges on truth.

      I agree. And that convergence usually takes around a century. So, for, oh, say, climate models from 2015, we can consider the settled science in about 2115, after plenty of verification and observation.

    17. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      When he was advocating the safety of leaded gasoline, that almost certainly wasn't science.

      The scientific community gave him awards for his work, and the federal government and their expert panels determined that there wasn't sufficient evidence for harm in order to ban lead. So, in different words, the scientific experts at the time disagree with you.

    18. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Okay. And after I've remembered it, then what? Ignore all science because this one guy was hoist with his own mechanism? Or listen to all science, but just bear in mind that future information might contradict it?

      I said that you shouldn't listen to scientists tell you how to live your life or tell you that the science is settled and you should just do what they tell you. That is a statement not about science, but about scientists talking about things outside their area of expertise. My point is that scientists are generally good at scientific research, but otherwise, they are as fallible, selfish, and delusional as the average human being.

      So, the only way to "listen to science" is to go back to the original literature and read and understand it. If you can't do that, you aren't "listening to science".

    19. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      variation on the 'science was wrong before' myth

      Pointing out that scientists are selfish, fallible human beings (something Midgley illustrates well) has nothing to do with whether "science is right/wrong". Sorry if such subtle distinctions are lost on you.

    20. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's only in hindsight that you know who was right.

      You make it sound as if there's an alternative.

    21. Re:ah, scientists by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

      - Max Planck

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    22. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or making a nonflammable refrigerant (CFCs)...

      If you're talking about R12, it actually is flammable. In fact, the fumes are deadly poisonous. I'm pretty sure it's a neurotoxin.

    23. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Planck is saying that many scientists are so narrow minded that they need to die before a new theory can be accepted, a pretty damning statement. He doesn't say that the next generation necessarily gets it right.

    24. Re:ah, scientists by zmooc · · Score: 1

      the scientific experts at the time disagree with you

      But they obviously didn't do the science. Scientific experts can say what they want but if they didn't research it, you'd better be skeptical.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    25. Re:ah, scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cautionary note 2: Generally scientists do NOT tell me how to live my life. At best (or worst), those in nutrition will tell me that if I eat much of X, my risk of Y will increase. I'm still free to do as I please.

    26. Re:ah, scientists by dave420 · · Score: 1

      What do you call it when he poisons himself by demonstrating that his product isn't poisonous, then lies about being poisoned? There is no scientific benefit to doing that, but there is a lot of money...

    27. Re:ah, scientists by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      The scientists are totally distinguishable over time, the method converges on truth.

      I agree. And that convergence usually takes around a century. So, for, oh, say, climate models from 2015, we can consider the settled science in about 2115, after plenty of verification and observation.

      Brilliant. If the majority opinion on climate change is correct, doing nothing until then will be a disaster. Sometimes you don't get to wait a century until it's someone else's problem.

    28. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      What do you call it when he poisons himself by demonstrating that his product isn't poisonous, then lies about being poisoned?

      You got the order of events wrong. He started working on lead compounds in 1921, took some time off to recuperate from "lead poisoning" in 1923, and then in 1924 did the demonstrations breathing in leaded fumes.

      Furthermore, he never claimed that lead wasn't poisonous; he claimed that it wasn't poisonous in the minute amounts that it was released into the air by engines. By analogy, a chemist who gets chemical pneumonia from inhaling ammonia doesn't go on to ban ammonia from household cleaning products, because it simply isn't a problem in the kinds of concentrations it is used in cleaning products.

    29. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      But they obviously didn't do the science. Scientific experts can say what they want but if they didn't research it, you'd better be skeptical.

      Great, so how do you tell when to be skeptical? I'm saying that a non-expert can never reliably tell when scientists have enough information to make a decision and when they don't. In practice, the whole thing turns into an ideological battle, where people who like different political outcomes argue pointlessly over which "scientific experts" have "done the science".

      (Incidentally, we still don't really know what "the science" on TEL actually is; it was phased out more as a precaution then out of specific, demonstrable harm. Phasing out leaded gasoline was prudent and fairly simple, but there wasn't a lot more hard scientific data demonstrating harm than a few decades earlier.)

    30. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Brilliant. If the majority opinion on climate change is correct, doing nothing until then will be a disaster.

      That isn't "the majority opinion". The only thing "the majority" agrees on is that there is some degree of AGW. Many experts believe that that implies some reduction in economic growth, some flooding of islands, some extinction of species, and the climate-related migration of maybe 1% of the world population over the span of a century. None of those are "disasters". And "the majority" also has no agreement on what to do about it or whether any government policy is going to be effective.

      One can agree completely on "the science" of climate change and reach very different conclusions about the consequences and policies.

    31. Re:ah, scientists by slew · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Mr. Midgley (and his boss Mr. Kettering) were both advocating ethanol as an anti-knock for a couple years, until Mr. Midgley stumbled upon TEL. Pretty much everyone at GM's engine production division was against it (because of the lead buildup problem), but Midgely and Kettering convinced management that since they could patent it, TEL was a better for financial reasons. To me that is pretty much putting profit above harm. That is not saying all his motivation was profit, but certainly profit tilted the decision in this case. In fact this history behind TEL shows the story.

      The initial goal the the Delco research program headed by Kettering was to increase compression ratios in engines to smooth a transition to an alcohol based fuel because of a perceived pending shortage of oil. A higher compression engine would be able to burn both alcohol and gasoline, but the problem with gasoline was the so-call pre-ignition knock due to non-octane fractions which raised havoc with high compression engines.

      Research in Kettering's lab by Mr Midgley showed that ethanol was probably the best fuel for high-compression engines and they a gasoline and ethanol blend was a reasonable transition. GM bought Delco (actually named Dayton Metal Products at the time as the original name was sold in a spinoff) and turned it into GM research division. Eager to convince GM to continue to fund advanced fuel research, he tasked Mr. Midgley to take that anti-knock additives, but basically the research stalled and because of the impending transition to alcohol, Mr. Midgley eventually filed a patent application for a blend of alcohol and gasoline on February 28, 1920, clearly intending it to be an antiknock fuel of choice.

      Later with continued research they stumbled upon the TEL additive and made a strategically deceptive press announcement about it: “Discovery of a tellurium gasoline compound which increases gasoline mileage by one hundred percent over present gasoline fuel was announced at the research lab of the G.M. Co. here today.” (since TEL was secret, the press mistook it for tellurium instead of lead). It is documented in the GM archives that Mr. Midgley had personally received letters from four of the world’s leading experts in the field: Wilson of MIT, Reid Hunt of Harvard, Yandell Henderson of Yale and Charles Kraus of Pottsdam in Germany. Each of the letters gave grave warnings about the toxicity of TEL and admonished him from continuing in this line of research. In addition, he received a specific warning from Public heath and the US Surgeon General about TEL being “serious menace to public health.”

      As a response this, they required all future correspondence with media and government regulators to call the TEL-gas mixture Ethyl Gas (their trade name) to minimize its association with TEL industrial accidents that had occurred.

      Mr. Midgely is also on record for advising the Navy to not use TEL-gas: “We have made great progress in overcoming the spark plug and valve trouble caused by (Ethyl lead) but we have not yet solved the problem to our entire satisfaction; and, in view of the fact that it is essential that no engine trouble of any kind develop, it seems wise not to risk the use of this material Probably the best possibilities are offered by a fuel consisting of a gasoline-benzol-alcohol blend”

      Even armed with this knowledge and his reservations about the material, Midgley later wrote the following: “The way I feel about the Ethyl Gas situation is about as follows: It looks as though we could count on a minimum of 20 percent of the gas sold in the country if we advertise and go after the business – this at three cent gross to us from each gallon sold. I think we ought to go after it as soon as we can without being too hasty ”

      This isn't knee jerk reaction, this is reaction to this specific case (where you seem to be assuming a general position that Midgley is "typical").

    32. Re:ah, scientists by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      variation on the 'science was wrong before' myth

      Pointing out that scientists are selfish, fallible human beings (something Midgley illustrates well) has nothing to do with whether "science is right/wrong". Sorry if such subtle distinctions are lost on you.

      But that was the poster's original point: This scientist was fallible and corrupt -> The generalization that all scientists are fallible (and the implication of corruption too) -> you can't trust climate research that scientists as a whole agree on because Migley shows that scientists just have their own interests at heart.

    33. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      This isn't knee jerk reaction, this is reaction to this specific case (where you seem to be assuming a general position that Midgley is "typical").

      Yes, Midgley is typical: those are the usual reward systems set up for both corporate and government scientists, and Midgley himself didn't really show much responsibility, nor was he qualified even to evaluate the effects of his invention.

      In addition, he received a specific warning from Public heath and the US Surgeon General about TEL being “serious menace to public health.”

      If it was a "serious menace to public health", the federal government should have outlawed it. Instead, it convened an expert panel which permitted the use of TEL and effectively immunized the corporations from lawsuits for decades. So, all your comment shows is not that there was anything wrong with Midgley (who wasn't even an expert on public health or toxicology), it shows that the Surgeon General didn't do his job.

    34. Re:ah, scientists by slew · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I still think you are ignoring the fact that he didn't even think it worked very well (and wrote a letter to the Navy to that effect).

      There is the image of a scientist that puts the blinders on an thinks his invention is the greatest and damn the consequences, but I think in this case, the image is more, well, this kinda works, I'm going to ignore all the warnings I'm receiving and we can patent it and make some money on it. Maybe that's your image of the "typical" scientist, but I just don't happen to agree that is "typical".

      Anyhow, I doesn't look like we will convince each other either way on this topic.

    35. Re:ah, scientists by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I still think you are ignoring the fact that he didn't even think it worked very well (and wrote a letter to the Navy to that effect).

      I don't know where you got that from. TEL obviously does work well, and there actually haven't been that many alternatives. Besides anti-knock, it also protects valves. It took quite a while to come up with good alternatives (some of them are themselves toxic). In addition, TEL was primarily taken off the market because it interferes with catalytic converters; public health was at best a secondary reason (we still don't know whether it ever caused serious public health problems).

      but I think in this case, the image is more, well, this kinda works, I'm going to ignore all the warnings I'm receiving and we can patent it and make some money on it.

      Your analysis still hinges on the false assumption that there were better alternatives and that there were warnings to ignore. All things considered, TEL was pretty good at what it did and there was little reason to believe that it was dangerous as used in gasoline. So, it certainly didn't take much self-delusion in order to push this as a product.

      Maybe that's your image of the "typical" scientist, but I just don't happen to agree that is "typical".

      As far as his job as a scientist was concerned, he received no direct financial rewards from his inventions, he received rewards from his employer for making his employer happy. And that's what typical scientists do: they make their employers happy, whether that's a corporation, a national lab, or a university, and whether their employers are made happy by patents, profits, kills, or political advantage.

  11. LUDDITES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Every modern app apper knows that the best way to get around town or keep your perishable food chilled is with appy apps. Only LUDDITES use gasoline or freon!

    Apps!

  12. Re:Crackers invent poison and are regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You go the whole post cracking on crackers, and then suddenly, crtackers are the ones that are stupid and privileged?

    I'm not sure how you made that leap from crackers to crtackers. Nothing in the rest of your post even mentions crtackers, much less provides any evidence that they're stupid and/or privileged.

  13. Re:JUSTICE by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like Karma to me.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  14. Re:Someone needs to invent this. by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    They've already created sexbots, although the "indistinguishable from the real thing" might still be a bit of a problem. Most blonds I know can't pass a Turing test either!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  15. George Lucas didn't ruin my childhood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking polio did.

  16. Actually, if you read TFA.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...he was indeed lying for financial gain, because he was suffering from lead poison and was quite aware of it. What he honestly believed is impossible for us to know, but if honestly believed lead was harmless he was deliberately ignoring evidence to the contrary. The fact that some scientists mislead others (and perhaps themselves) out of love for money or their pet theories, doesn't mean all scientists behave the same way.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:Actually, if you read TFA.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      ...he was indeed lying for financial gain

      [citation needed].

      There are some truly great doctors out there who for the longest time chain-smoked their way through life even as their colleagues were dropping from various cancers. It is quite possible to believe something and not have a financial tooth in the game. He was a scientist and an engineer. He did a lot of work for corporations. He wasn't getting rich of either invention, his employers were.

    2. Re:Actually, if you read TFA.... by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      ..he was indeed lying for financial gain

      Midgeley was a research scientist working for an employer. His "financial gain" was limited to salary, bonuses, promotions, and stock options. That's the same motivation most scientists on this planet have.

      because he was suffering from lead poison and was quite aware of it.

      He thought he had inhaled too much of the stuff in the lab and needed to give his lungs a bit of time to recover, that's all. If anything, the relatively mild symptoms he had in response to working with large amounts of lead would have caused him to believe that in small doses, it was harmless.

      What he honestly believed is impossible for us to know, but if honestly believed lead was harmless he was deliberately ignoring evidence to the contrary.

      He didn't believe lead was harmless, he believed it was harmless in the quantities normal people would encounter outside the lab. And that belief was plausible enough to convince large numbers of other chemists and government officials. Keep in mind that Midgley wasn't a toxicologist or physician, so his opinions didn't carry that much weight anyway. He had synthesized the stuff, and others were ultimately the experts to determine its safety.

      The fact that some scientists mislead others (and perhaps themselves) out of love for money or their pet theories, doesn't mean all scientists behave the same way.

      No, it doesn't mean that. But you won't know which scientist is which for a long time after the initial claims they made. Generally, though, the more important a scientific result makes its discoverer, the more likely it is that the scientist wasn't entirely pure in his motives.

    3. Re:Actually, if you read TFA.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      From TFA: "What the public didn’t know was that Midgley had recently spent six weeks in Florida, golfing in the sunshine in an attempt to clear his own lungs of lead particles."

      I can't tell you what Midgely believed, but lying by omission is still deception, and he was not forthcoming about his own health issues due to lead. You don't have to be getting rich to have a financial incentive. I'm not getting rich, but I have a financial incentive to show up to work.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    4. Re:Actually, if you read TFA.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That quote says nothing about financial gain which is my point. People do things for all sorts of reasons. I'm guessing a large part of it may have been pride. That happens to inventors. Showing up for work has nothing to do with lying in public.

      In any case you'll need more of a citation than some random post on Hackaday. Midgley's biography shows that early in his career he took up golf as a way to get out of the laboratory and that he was an avid golfer, played the game a lot, and was also quite good at it. More so he was fascinated enough by it that he started experimenting with various grasses attempting to make the perfect green. So if that's your only cite (and hackaday is about all that comes up when looking for a reference on it) then no I don't believe he was lying by omission at all.

  17. "and no banned"? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    (and no banned)

    Do some bloody editing, someone, please.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:"and no banned"? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Oh, and you managed to spell his name wrong as well. It's Midgley, not Migley.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  18. Re:Crackers invent poison and are regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever, we're just doing what Yakub programmed us to do, right?

  19. Re:JUSTICE by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wouldn't exactly call it justice when the organism arguably responsible for the most environmental damage ever seen on the planet died because he screwed up and accidentally strangled himself.

    Yea, but the question is, did he know any of that at the time those inventions were made?

    Did he have reason to know?

    If not, then you can't blame him for them, plenty of things were invented that way and then changed in the future. Lead paint is another example off the top of my head.

  20. another link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's another article about the guy:
    http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth/

  21. Re:JUSTICE by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    He was the meteor that landed 65 million years ago! Wow!

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  22. Re:JUSTICE by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where is the evidence that he was trying to make dangerous products?
    The common wisdom of the time, was the atmosphere was large enough and the biosphere diverse enough to clear up any toxins, and what men can do would only be a small effect.
    This idea was wrong, but it took a lot of science to show this effect.

    But if you want to vilify people for being part of their time... How much carbon are we polluting as part of these trivial posts?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  23. propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets imply that inventors who invent things that are bad for the environment were somehow defective and deserved their fates.

  24. Re:Crackers invent poison and are regressive by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    Sadly, this is the mentality taught to young people nowadays.

  25. Re:JUSTICE by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA:

    In 1924, General Motors was headed for a scandal. Although reports of sickness had been coming out of all three tetraethyl refineries, the story was concealed from the newspapers. But things came to a head at the TEL refinery in Bayway, New Jersey. Dozens of workers contracted lead poisoning from breathing the toxic vapors and became violently insane. Five men died within a short time and news coverage was unavoidable.

    Midgley stopped at nothing in trying to convince the public that his antiknock additive was safe. He would pour TEL additive onto his own hands and take deep breaths from the bottle in front of large audiences, all the while insisting that it was harmless and that repeated daily exposure was nothing to worry about. What the public didn’t know was that Midgley had recently spent six weeks in Florida, golfing in the sunshine in an attempt to clear his own lungs of lead particles.

    So, he might not have known from the very beginning, but he certainly knew early on and did his best to keep it quiet. That strikes me as knowing and willful.

  26. Re:JUSTICE by sjames · · Score: 2

    RTFA! He knew the stuff was dreadfully toxic and hushed it up so it could remain in production.

  27. Re:Crackers invent poison and are regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently there are still areas where lead poisoning is still happening......

  28. Re:JUSTICE by njnnja · · Score: 1

    No he was the thing that caused The Great Dying about 250 million years ago.

  29. Re:JUSTICE by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    Fair enough, I didn't know that since I rarely RTFA...

    Then he got what he deserved...

  30. Re:JUSTICE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have known at the time of its invention that it was highly toxic. Lead toxicity was well understood. As you say, he almost certainly knew no later than during its initial large-scale production.

    He was probably insane by 1921, two years before his own collapse, and three before the fifteen deaths and many more permanent disabilities started racking up in the summer of 1924. The outbursts of destructive violence that the eventually totally incapcitated victims at the TEL factories were characterized by the embrace of extremely risky behaviour and ignoring the safety of others; in the worst cases this involved destructive (and even fatal) violence aimed at themselves and others. It's not hard to imagine that a milder form of this stayed with him Midgley for the rest of his life. Kettering may also have suffered similarly.

  31. MTBE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't exactly call it justice when the organism arguably responsible for the most environmental damage ever seen on the planet died because he screwed up and accidentally strangled himself.

    Although not a planetary damage thing, I think Cal Air Resources Board Chair Jananne Sharpless (and Gov Pete Wilson that appointed her) was in the pocket of ARCO when she railroaded the mandatory addition of MTBE into the California gasoline blend, recklessly polluting ground water reserves in California for the next few decades.

    In the subsequent barrage of anti-trust suits from other oil companies (texaco, unical, chevron) that followed this regulation, ARCO admitted in sworn testimony “CARB adopted reformulated gasoline specifications for all gasoline sold in California after March 1, 1996 that are equivalent to the EC-X formula.” Also, in the days after these decisions, in advertisements published in major California newspapers, ARCO claimed credit for the enactment of the regulations and it admitted that it cleared the ad copy with CARB’s executive officers in advance.

    Of course now MTBE is banned from California gasoline, but it certainly shows how often scientists aren't the worst offenders, it's the politicians that enable them.

    1. Re:MTBE by Ranbot · · Score: 3, Informative

      So I am an environmental consultant who deals with contamination like this. I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but like many things, it's complicated. Here are a few other facts that should be in the discussion about MTBE:

      1) The reason MTBE was mandated by the federal gov't (not just CA) was that it did significantly reduce tailpipe emissions, which had a real benefit to human health and air quality. (Now ethanol has replaced MTBE to serve the same function, again by federal mandate)
      2) Risks associated with groundwater contamination were not as well understood then as they are now, so we can only place blame on MTBE and the regulators who mandated it with the benefit of hindsight.*
      3) MTBE got lots of press, but there are other compounds in gasoline with much higher toxicity and are more persistent in soils and groundwater (benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and tri-methylbenzenes to give a few examples).
      4) The vast majority of MTBE [and gasoline contamination in general] was from leaky, old, poorly constructed/maintained underground tank systems that prior to the mid-90's had little to no regulations or industry standards. By the end of the 90's essentially all registered underground storage tanks across the country were replaced or upgraded to comply with new federal standards to make them much more reliable (like double-walled tanks, leak detection systems, corrosion resistance, maintenance standards, electronic monitoring, and more). The federal mandate to replace MTBE with ethanol came about a decade after the country had upgraded the tank systems, so the actual of risk MTBE contamination to groundwater at that time was very low; most contamination of MTBE had happened many years prior.
      5) Since the federal mandate to replace MTBE with ethanol the number of nationwide reported leaks from tank systems has spiked because ethanol, unlike MTBE, is very corrosive and degrades tank systems faster, which goes back to point #3 that there are worse compounds in gasoline to worry about. The silver-lining is the new tanks systems are much better at quickly identifying when a leak occurs, significantly reducing the volume of gasoline leaked before it is corrected.

      *- Keep in mind the EPA didn't even exist until 1970 and politicians/laws typically lag 5-10 years behind the science. So, it wasn't until around 1990 that our understanding of contamination and environmental regulations started to have any significant impact on how businesses/polluters operated. Relative to many other STEM fields, environmental science is very young and the changes in our understanding of contamination, risk, and regulations over the past couple decades cannot be understated.

  32. Re:JUSTICE by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    The common wisdom of the time, was the atmosphere was large enough and the biosphere diverse enough to clear up any toxins, and what men can do would only be a small effect.

    And almost 100 years later, we've got knuckleheads today saying exactly the same thing.

    http://news.heartland.org/news...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  33. Question from QI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This exact fact was discussed in one of the BBC QI episodes. Either the QI elves mine such facts from Wikipedia or the author of this post is a QI fan or both!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gZAnnvSOEmw

  34. sounds like a slow news day for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, How is this news for nerdz??
    It's naught discussing any tech advances, nor did this event happen recently..
    Moving past all of that crap, yes if I were a chemist, alchemist, metalurgist, or (stretch) a mechanic then yes I could see how this would fit..

    No wonder this cluster F*ck is up for sale again..

    1. Re:sounds like a slow news day for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You again.

      We're sorry that Slashdot doesn't stick to your mystery definition of "tech", which appears to exclude chemistry, physics, biology, combustion engine mechanics, and environmental science.

  35. http://s.cela.ca/files/uploads/Cs_Lead.pdf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An early warning in 1904 from an Australian doctor about the hazard to children from lead in paint and the need for regulation was greeted with derision by both medical professionals and those with commercial interests in lead compounds. By the 1920s, the Australian Medical Congress passed a resolution seeking a ban on lead in paint.

    The regulation of lead in paint did not begin in North America until 50 years later.

    Also in the 1920s, warnings about the public health consequences of allowing lead in gasoline were largely dismissed. Again, it was not until nearly 50 years later, when worldwide automotive lead pollution had reached 350,000 tons/year, that regulating the level of lead in gasoline was
    contemplated. In North America, it was to be a twenty year battle that was not decided in favour of banning lead in gasoline until scientists were able to clearly show that millions of children were already affected

  36. Re:Crackers invent poison and are regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The post was written by a white racist pretending to be a minority, in order to make minorities look stupid.

    Don't take it too seriously.

  37. "Fair and Balanced" by westlake · · Score: 1

    R-12 is a refrigerant that revolutionized the cold storage of vaccines

    That barely scratches the surface of the thing.

    Charles Kettering, vice president of General Motors Research Corporation, was seeking a refrigerant replacement that would be colorless, odorless, tasteless, nontoxic, and nonflammable.

    Dichlorodifluoromethane

    The refrigerant of choice for the 19th century ice machine was ammonia, which has the drawbacks of being highly toxic, corrosive, and difficult to compress. The net result is that the ice machines were massive (as big as a typical kitchen), steam powered (the best source of energy in the 19th century for large equipment. needing constant boiler attendance), required a lot of maintenance and were the source of industrial accidents.

    Sulfur dioxide is compressed readily and has a good latent heat of 25 kJ/mol. Chemists and physicists were able to put a kitchen sized version of the refrigerator on the market after World War One. Unfortunately, sulfur dioxide isn't the most pleasant refrigerant: Early refrigerators leaked and if they didn't, sulfur dioxide is corrosive, so they soon would.

    Dichlorodifluoromethane

    The first refrigerator to see widespread use was the General Electric "Monitor-Top" refrigerator introduced in 1927, so-called because of its resemblance to the gun turret on the ironclad warship USS Monitor of the 1860s.

    As the refrigerating medium, these refrigerators used either sulfur dioxide, which is corrosive to the eyes and may cause loss of vision, painful skin burns and lesions, or methyl formate, which is highly flammable, harmful to the eyes, and toxic if inhaled or ingested.

    Refrigerator

    "Refrigerator Day is the Dinosaurs analogue to Christmas and the titular celebration...Refrigerator Day, or Fridge Day for short, celebrates the development of the greatest boon to modern dinosaur, the refrigerator. Thanks to the development of this magical cold box, dinosaurs could store food and no longer had to continually roam, and thus were able to settle down and start families. Fridge Day is traditionally marked with gift-giving, a pageant recalling the first Refrigerator Day, festive decorations, a Fridge Day bonus, and jolly Refrigerator Day carols. Muppet Wiki - Refrigerator Day

    Henson was on to something here.

    I don't think the geek has any clear picture of what life was like before modern refrigeration and air conditioning.

    The ideal refrigerant would have favorable thermodynamic properties, be noncorrosive to mechanical components, and be safe, including free from toxicity and flammability. It would not cause ozone depletion or climate change.

    Refrigerant

    That ideal refrigerant doesn't exist in 2015 ---

    but if you look honestly at the problem from the point of view of someone living in 1935, Freon comes pretty damn close.

    1. Re:"Fair and Balanced" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You missed out CO2 which was a quite popular refrigerant. The main disadvantage is the very high pressures required compared to CFCs. It was used prior to CFCs and maintained a niche popularity in industrial systems ever since.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:"Fair and Balanced" by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Propane meets all those... except flammability, sadly.

      But I never understood why it didn't catch on for home HVAC systems where we already often have gas lines full of flammable gas (sometimes even propane!).

      Sam

  38. Didn't they know from the get go by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    because people working in the factories kept getting sick and started acting crazy? Kinda like how they found out nitrates are carcinogenic: a farmer's cows kept dying of liver cancer and they traced it back to massive amounts of canned herring he was feeding them because he got it cheap from a factory after it couldn't be sold.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  39. How about smog? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and cancers, asthmas and other diseases it causes. How about our wars for oil fought to support the car industry (which couldn't exist without cheap gas) and the horrors wrought to support it. How about the death of public transportation and the stress and misery caused when those masses are forced to struggle to obtain costly transportation better suited for an idle rich? How about fuck you Henry Ford. You were an asshole and I want my clean air and cheap transportation back.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  40. Mercury not poisonous in teeth by Theovon · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that mercury is poisonous. Pregnant women are told to avoid larger fish because of the higher mercury concentrations (from eating smaller fish). People freak out when they break a CFC (which contains less mercury than a can of tuna) and spend inordinates amount of money to clean it up.

    But then when people to go to the dentist with cavities, what do they do? Fill them with a gold and silver amalgam dissolved in MERCURY. They tell you that it all evaporates away quickly, but it doesn’t. Years later, people end up with measurable quantities of mercury in hair samples, compromised immune systems, and arthritis.

    This finally went to court in 2014, the FDA is starting to change how it classifies mercury. So bascally, dentists have been poisoning us for as long as there have been amalgam fillings.

  41. Re:Someone needs to invent this. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Back in 1996, an Ig Nobel Prize was awarded to the authors of a report on "Transmission of Gonorrhea Through an Inflatable Doll."

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  42. There are oblivious and dangerous people - I was by nomentanus · · Score: 2

    I knew a man like this - a boss of mine at a summer job - who was oblivious to safety concerns whether that meant ancient gas stoves he cavalierly over-rode the safety valves on, canoes, or anything else (he was an avid tinkerer and jerry-rigger, but in his case not truly inventive.) He was more than a bit of a bully in everything, and felt certain he could bully nature, too. I left that summer job glad to still have my skin (after one very close call in one of his boats.) Just a couple years later I read that he had managed to kill both himself and his grown daughter on a ski slope, going where he was clearly warned he shouldn't go (but he knew better.) Believe me, when I read that news story, I didn't say "Gosh, that was a freak accident."

    Nature bullied back, in the end.

    As for myself, my inventions and clever thoughts have only killed one person, that I know of. (It was years before - looking back - I realized what had caused his death: the incident above happened in between.) One can't always avoid unintended consequences, but one can have more forethought than Midgley, I or my late boss did! Please do. Software kills, too, in many ways - the recent change to Facebook's notification algorithm broke many medical support groups on FB, making it much harder for people to get help quickly or reliably, and hasn't been fixed.

  43. Re:JUSTICE by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Lead paint was in use for a very long time, BECAUSE it was known to be toxic.

    That's why it was used on ocean going ships and submarines. It kills barnacles.

    The toxicity of lead has been known about since at least the roman empire.

  44. Re:Crackers invent poison and are regressive by dave420 · · Score: 1

    It's just as abhorrent as your rampant misogyny. Don't try to claim the moral high ground - you have already failed.

  45. Re:JUSTICE by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    It also killed mold. That's part of why it ended up in household paints.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas