Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

Historical awareness of lead toxicity

• Commenters note that lead’s dangers were known long before TEL gas, citing an 18th‑century Franklin letter and early-20th‑century bans (e.g., Switzerland in 1926, Soviet urban restrictions in the 1950s).
• Discussion highlights how industry-backed research entrenched the ideas that lead was “natural” in humans and safe below a threshold, delaying policy change.
• Clair Patterson’s work on environmental lead and resistance from industry-funded scientists is referenced as pivotal in shifting that paradigm.

Midgley, culpability, and engineering ethics

• Thomas Midgley Jr. is portrayed as central to both leaded gasoline and CFCs, with some calling him “accidentally” the most dangerous man in history.
• Others dispute the “accidental” label, pointing to his public stunts with TEL despite suffering lead poisoning himself.
• Debate over responsibility: some emphasize corporate leadership and profit motives; others stress individual engineers’ ethical duties, rejecting “just following orders” defenses.

Leaded avgas and aviation

• Several comments stress that leaded gasoline remains widely used in piston-engine general aviation, with nearly 200,000 aircraft in the US cited.
• There is strong disagreement: some argue any amount of lead is unacceptable and want an immediate ban; others argue total risk from GA emissions is low compared to other sources, so transition can be gradual.
• Technical and regulatory barriers are discussed: lead as an anti-knock additive, rigorous certification, slow-moving FAA processes, liability exposure, and small market size.
• Unleaded alternatives (G100UL, UL94, proposed 100R, mogas, diesel/Jet A, and turboprops) are mentioned, along with “chicken-and-egg” issues of infrastructure and approvals.

Health, behavior, and politics

• Commenters cite evidence that historical lead exposure has reduced average IQ (e.g., ~2.6 IQ points) and link maps of current exposure and economic impact.
• Some speculate leaded gas contributed to social dysfunction and even political outcomes (e.g., Trump’s election), while others question timing and causality, noting persistent voter preferences and multiple confounders.

Comparisons to other environmental harms

• Parallels are drawn to cigarettes, asbestos, DDT, Teflon, and climate change: harms were known or suspected, but economic interests and public denial delayed action.
• Climate discussion distinguishes between those who knowingly lie for profit, those who remain willfully ignorant, and those who care but still participate in fossil-fuel-intensive systems.

Alternative fuels and vehicles

• LPG/CNG experiences in the UK and Netherlands are discussed: technically viable and cleaner but undermined by policy (taxes, scrappage schemes), infrastructure, and practical drawbacks.
• Electric vehicles are defended as clearly better over lifecycle emissions once driven a modest distance, with battery recyclability and emerging sodium-ion tech cited.
• Some remain concerned about battery waste and grid impacts; others call those objections outdated talking points.

Regulation, liability, and institutional dynamics

• Aviation regulation is portrayed as ultra-conservative, with certification costs, manufacturer liability, and FAA priorities discouraging modern engines and fuels.
• Experimental/amateur-built aircraft and “build assist” schemes are described as workarounds that shift liability to owners, illustrating structural issues rather than genuine choice.

Miscellaneous

• Side threads cover asbestos risk (low in bound forms, high for miners/demolition workers), linguistic nitpicking (“annoy to no end”), macabre interest in inventors killed by their inventions, and comparisons between ancient Roman and modern lead use.