this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
743 points (99.5% liked)
Work Reform
9970 readers
3 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you're worried about leaded fuels (and I agree, you should be) then don't look up next time a small plane flies over.. They're almost all still using leaded Avgas :\
Some scientist took to mapping IQ levels geographically and everyone who lives downwind of a small airport has a consistent and directly proportional drop to the average concentration of airborne lead for about 1-4 miles surrounding them. The drops in IQ even perfectly match the wind patterns. It's insane. If you live really close to a small airport, pack up and move away.
It's also crazy that they allowed small aircraft to get away with not having to follow the same fuel regulations, it's really a small difference in cost, our politicians are just too bought out.
Edit: but also, the rest of us likely breathe it in as well, just not as much, and we haven't figured out exactly how much; ostensibly because it spreads out too much and thus affects everyone more evenly. Yay "energy" corporations and capitalism.
Aviation regulations are written in blood. There's a reason general aviation is stuck with technology developed in the 50s and 60s: innovating is so expensive from a compliance standpoint and production volume so low that new technologies enter that space at a glacial pace. A new Jet-A burning piston engine is only available in airframes that cost $1M+ and the cost of retrofitting in older airframes is prohibitive. If we weren't so restrictive on the regulations, capitalism would offer a solution at a vastly reduced price point. So, would you rather have less provably safe aircraft, leaded avgas, or the complete prohibition of aircraft that make up the vast majority of the GA population?
The last one.
Let’s slow the world down a little bit - things move waaaay to fast anymore.
Formula 1 hasn’t used leaded fuel since the early 90s.
Why fucking lie
Yea, the Wikipedia page on formula one cars
Formula one car
-Wikipedia on F1
That's the same as saying they don't contain any.
Yea, no. F1 cars don’t use leaded fuel.
"Zero safe limits" has a lot to do with the scale. While it can't be good for those in attendance, between the relative infrequency of races, limited number of cars on the field, and general use of batteries even in the ICE leagues (let alone caring about emissions for efficiency purposes), it is probably perfectly fine. Or, more pointedly, all the OTHER emissions are likely a much bigger concern.
Also, the number of safety and societal dangers of F1 go WELL beyond just dangerous fuel. Like, I enjoy watching the occasional race. But holy shit does F1 make pro wrestling look "not THAT bad..."
Their point has validity on any scale though... I'm generally not a fan of "zero tolerance" in any context, but the context here is ostensibly an intentionally equalized playing field, meaning that a zero tolerance policy on any aspect is inherently fair... So there's really no excuse for accepting environmental hazards...
The assertion that allowance of additives (any additives that pose environmental/spectator hazards) has no benefit other than "car go fast", is a solid point.
The waste from the cars, the maintenance, transportation, and the event itself go above and beyond. Yes, everyone totally keeps the fancy kitty litter around to get every single leak and so forth. Sure...
Not to mention the increased exhaust.
As for scale: Yes, it really does matter.
Rough numbers time.
So 4*39.29*20=3143gallons per race for the cars alone.3143 / 12 = 261cars. 261 cars use the amount of fuel used in a single F1 race in between trips to the gas station.So yeah. The amount of fuel used in a given F1 race is a drop in the bucket relative to just how much is used by the cars that bring people to watch them. And I have intentionally not included the trucks used to transport the f1 cars or even the trains and boats.
And that is why, while it isn't good and I am opposed to it, the lead that may or may not still be used in F1 fuel (chat gpt says no, random ass quora page says 5 mg/L. Whereas, if there were even trace amounts of lead in the gas that gets everyone else to the F1 race...
The environmental impact of an F1 race, let alone a season, is horrendous. Even if we are talking formula E or whatever the current pure electric league is. And fixating on older fuel composition in the light of that is, quite frankly, asinine and self defeating.
Hell, the dirt and dust around the more rural tracks probably has MUCH more lead than the fuel.
Not all series use the same fuel as formula 1, pretty much just formula 1&2
Formula One hasn't used leaded gasoline since the 90's.
The fuel they use is actually very similar to the gas that anyone can buy at the pump.
https://flowracers.com/blog/what-fuel-do-f1-cars-use/
Here's something that you might find annoying:
According to the EPA 61 FR 3832 - Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead Additives for Highway Use
This is the same limit Formula 1 has for its fuels. Formula 1 fuel is unleaded fuel.
It's even like E10 now
For Formula 1 cars it is 5mg/l. Old four star leaded has about 840mg/l but is now banned. In the UK low lead petrol is available from a small number of specialist garages for classic cars which cannot run on unleaded and contains about 75mg/l.
So while none is the best, this is a very small fraction in comparison as to what it used to be, and it also is to cover cross contamination purposes.
get those engines modified so they do take unleaded, shit is bad for anyone breathing it
edit: also, I'm not sure I completely buy it. Lead was only picked as an additive because it was the cheapest available. Before it was even picked, there were other economically and mechanically viable alternatives. The commercial aircraft industry switched to a different additive seamlessly once lead was legislated away. The studies about this are abundant and easily found; sounds like some old farts just managed to squeeze by with a bogus excuse that no-one scrutinized.
Don't know why you're downvoted, there's no excuse to use leaded fuel in anything.
There's no lead in the fuel. That's why. Downvote for incorrect information.