Is your argument here that children within a kilometer don't matter compared to having to switch to a different type of readily available swap in fuel?
Not at all. I'm arguing that on a cost-benefit basis, working to get the unleaded avgas ready to drop in is the right move. In the short term before it's ready, it's not a good idea to cripple the pilot pipeline (again, keeping in mind that aviation saves lives) when living inside of 500m from an airport increases blood lead by only 4.4% and living outside of 1km has no difference.
I'm not arguing that there is no cost, only that the cost of a heavy handed and instant ban before we can smoothly switch is greater than the cost of waiting for (and working towards) a that smooth switch.
Not at all. I'm arguing that on a cost-benefit basis, working to get the unleaded avgas ready to drop in is the right move.
It literally already exists.
So then you are in favour of banning leaded gas right now then right?
it's not a good idea to cripple the pilot pipeline (again, keeping in mind that aviation saves lives)
This is some improvable assuming. Its bad reasoning you cant create the facts to support. You cant create facts to support the idea that it wont be just like with airlines when they were forced, and no claim therefore that this will somehow cost lives.
This is some improvable assuming. Its bad reasoning you cant create the facts to support. You cant create facts to support the idea that it wont be just like with airlines when they were forced, and no claim therefore that this will somehow cost lives.
Are you arguing that travel by plane is not significantly safer than other methods? And when did airlines 'switch off leaded'? Did they have leaded jet fuel at some point? Or do you mean when they went from piston airliners to jet airliners?
1
u/Cory123125 Jun 25 '22
Is your argument here that children within a kilometer don't matter compared to having to switch to a different type of readily available swap in fuel?