Re: leaded versus unleaded

[Carlyle Fitzgerald <clfitz@inetone.net>]

On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Tim Morgan wrote:

<SNIP>

> Not wishing to debate the merit of Cat versus No Cat, anybody
> care to voice an opinion as to whether a car without Cat is more
> environmentally unsound running leaded or unleaded?

Almost certainly, leaded fuel would be more damaging to the environment.

Some of the lead from the fuel would make it into the exhaust, for one
thing.  For another, you're exposed to lead when you fuel the car.
Gasoline is absorbed transdermally, and in the case of leaded fuel would
carry the lead across with it.  There would also be a small amount of lead
in the vapor, I'd imagine.

Whether there's any *meaningful* damage from what surely is a handful of
isolated cases is another matter.  I seriously doubt that your lifetime
burden from lead exposure due to filling the gas tank is going to amount
to much; ditto for environmental damage due to lead oxides and so forth
from your (and a few others') tailpipes.

All in all, I don't think I'd be awfully worried about it in this case.

Carlyle
********************************************************************************
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others.  But it does me no injury for my neighbours to say
my leg."     Thomas Jefferson, in _Notes on the State of Virginia_