Right on Cue, Lead Wheel Weight Ban Proposed

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

WDNR got back to me earlier this week. Sent me a couple of PDF's, along with the following note:

 

In all the vacuuming we have done in street curbs we have not had any reports from the field staff they see any lead weights. We have worked on everything from residential streets to freeways. I have attached the reports describing the important sources of pollutants. We have noticed the lead concentrations in stormwater have decreased at least by a factor of 4 since lead was removed from gasoline. I hope the papers help. Take care.

 

The observed lack of weights on the streets is in direct contrast to what Root observed in his study (see link earlier in this thread). Mighty odd...

 

The two documents:

 

Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater

 

and

 

Sources of Pollutants in Urban Areas

 

While both mention lead in the water, neither one specifically mentions wheel weights. Moreover, neither one contains anything like the quote used on the Ecology Center's leadfreewheels.org website.

 

I still have not heard back from the Ecology Center about that; I may call them tomorrow to ask them more about it.

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, the EPA declared in 2005 that there wasn't enough info at that time about the existence of a problem to justify regulation. I'm starting to think that's still the case. California folks, the ban currently up for consideration concerns you guys, so however you feel about it, contact your legislator and let them know!

 

If I hear more from the Ecology Center I will post here.

 

I also plan to contact Ms. Cummings at EPA and ask about what/whether the EPA is investigating the matter any further since their 2005 determination.

[smiller]

the EPA declared in 2005 that there wasn't enough info at that time about the existence of a problem to justify regulation.

But then again over the last eight years the EPA seems to have had a pretty consistent problem in 'finding enough info to justify regulation.' Of course, that would require actually looking for it... :smirk:

[Vicious_Cycler]

First motorcyclists were licking their paint. Now they're eating wheel weights? Is there some moto-initiation I've not been made aware of?

 

Irresistible Tangent Warning

 

Can a ban of 9mm, .40, .45 acp, et. al. lead be far behind ?

[Green RT]

I've noticed shoes (but never in pairs), hubcaps, various nuts and bolts, tire treads, and other odds and ends, but never wheel weights. I do believe they come off from time to time, but I'm just saying...I haven't seen any, it hasn't happened to me, and I don't know of anyone it's happened to.

You've met one person it's happened to Russell. I lost a wheel weight from my RT's front wheel once. And you gave me a speedometer cable that I swapped out in your garage a few years ago. No relation between the two incidents as far as I know.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

While both mention lead in the water, neither one specifically mentions wheel weights. Moreover, neither one contains anything like the quote used on the Ecology Center's leadfreewheels.org website.

 

I still have not heard back from the Ecology Center about that; I may call them tomorrow to ask them more about it.

.

.

.

If I hear more from the Ecology Center I will post here.

 

So the folks at the Ecology center replied yesterday to my email. They sent a copy of the WDNR document that they quoted on their website. I'm hosting it on my website, here's the link:

 

Polluted Urban Runoff: A Source of Concern

 

It's about a whole array of contaminants in runoff water, including lead. They list sources for all of these contaminants, including lead - but they do not include lead wheel-balancing weights in their source list.

 

IOW, there's no indication in this document that lead weights are a problem. I'll be sending an email back to the Ecology center to explain that this document doesn't particularly support their position [in favor of banning lead wheel weights].

 

I also plan to contact Ms. Cummings at EPA and ask about what/whether the EPA is investigating the matter any further since their 2005 determination.

 

This is still on my to-do list too...

[russell_bynum]

Thanks Mitch.

 

I hope this irritates the hell out of everyone.

 

We entrust our representatives with the ability to infringe on our rights and make life more difficult and more expensive....when necessary for the betterment of society.

 

You want to ban lead wheel weights here because of health/environmental concerns? Fine. I'm in favor of not dying of lead poisoning and if I've got to pay 3x more for my wheel weights, that's OK with me. BUT...you'd damn well better have data to support your suggestion that lead wheel weights are a problem.

 

That's not the case. Thusfar, there is little/no data to support this legislation, and the deeper you dig...the less you find.

 

But our representatives, the people we elect and pay to manage our society for us, are still willing to pass more laws to solve a problem that, by all accounts...doesn't exist.

 

I hope everyone else is as livid about this blatant breach of trust as I am. If you aren't...why not?

[russell_bynum]

First motorcyclists were licking their paint. Now they're eating wheel weights? Is there some moto-initiation I've not been made aware of?

 

Irresistible Tangent Warning

 

Can a ban of 9mm, .40, .45 acp, et. al. lead be far behind ?

 

Already done. In some areas, it is illegal to hunt with lead-core ammo because the endangered California Condor might eat some critter that you shot but didn't go pick up. I don't think there's any evidence that this has actually happened (or was likely to happen), but the modern "environmentalist" has never been particularly concerned with data or proof.

 

There are alternatives...most popular is solid copper bullets rather than copper-jacketed lead. Of course, copper is expensive and doesn't work as well as a lead-core bullet, but I'm sure that doesn't bother the "environmentalists" a bit.

[russell_bynum]

the EPA declared in 2005 that there wasn't enough info at that time about the existence of a problem to justify regulation.

But then again over the last eight years the EPA seems to have had a pretty consistent problem in 'finding enough info to justify regulation.' Of course, that would require actually looking for it... :smirk:

 

So...let's look for it. Do a legitimate study and let's see some data. If this is really an issue, then let's fix it. If it isn't, then let's STFU and worry about more important things.

[ghaverkamp]

Seems like you're getting awfully worked up about a pretty small amount of money.

[smiller]

Seems like you're getting awfully worked up about a pretty small amount of money.

Lead poisoning.

[DavidEBSmith]

Seems like you're getting awfully worked up about a pretty small amount of money.

Lead poisoning.

 

According to Wikipedia:

 

permanent and temporary reduced cognitive abilities,. . . irritability . . . excess lethargy or hyperactivity. . . permanently reduced cognitive capacity

 

Please step away from the bullets and wheel weights.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I hope everyone else is as livid about this blatant breach of trust as I am. If you aren't...why not?

 

The ban was proposed a month ago; anyone know whether it's passed now, or what its status is?

 

As it happens, it may not matter much. I was searching the web this morning for zinc and steel weights (couldn't find any at retail - anyone have a link?), and I found this item:

 

Perfect Equipment's Prop 65 Settlement Notice

 

Perfect Equipment is one of a few manufacturers/wholesalers of lead wheel weights. This settlement means the California market is gone, regardless of whether a formal legal ban passes or not. The wording of the settlement notice is unclear to me - I don't know whether just California retailers will be forbidden from using lead weights after this year, or whether even end users will be barred as well. No matter what, it seems likely that you will not be able to buy lead weights in California after the end of this year.

[ESokoloff]

 

In some areas, it is illegal to hunt with lead-core ammo because the endangered California Condor might eat some critter that you shot but didn't go pick up. I don't think there's any evidence that this has actually happened (or was likely to happen), but the modern "environmentalist" has never been particularly concerned with data or proof.

 

Russell, you really should do a little research on the condor/lead issue.

Oh & if you want to find wheel weights on the side of a roadway, look in the corners not the straights.

Wheel weights do indeed fall off of wheels.

[ESokoloff]

it seems likely that you will not be able to buy lead weights in California after the end of this year.

 

I still feel that the manufactures of tires & rims must step up to the plate by significantly reducing the NEED for wheel weights.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

it seems likely that you will not be able to buy lead weights in California after the end of this year.

 

I still feel that the manufactures of tires & rims must step up to the plate by significantly reducing the NEED for wheel weights.

 

Why?

[ESokoloff]

Progress.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Progress.

 

In what? Expense? Car makers want to get the car to you as cheaply as possible. The solution they've arrived at is imperfectly-balanced rims mated with imperfectly-balanced tires, finally balanced to perfection with the affixment of lead weights. Any other solution is likely to be more expensive.

[russell_bynum]

Seems like you're getting awfully worked up about a pretty small amount of money.

 

It isn't the money. It's the fact that our representatives are passing laws that attempt to control my behavior, make life more difficult/expensive, and there doesn't appear to be any data behind it.

 

Show me data and I'll support this legislation.

[russell_bynum]

Progress.

 

??

 

Let's say you perfectly balance the rim and the tire so that they're both perfectly balanced when the tire is mounted.

 

Oops...what about the valve stems? Better mandate that they are all the same weight and deminsions. Likewise with valve stem caps.

 

Wheel weights are a perfectly viable, accurate, and cheap solution to the problem.

[russell_bynum]

I hope everyone else is as livid about this blatant breach of trust as I am. If you aren't...why not?

 

The ban was proposed a month ago; anyone know whether it's passed now, or what its status is?

 

As it happens, it may not matter much. I was searching the web this morning for zinc and steel weights (couldn't find any at retail - anyone have a link?), and I found this item:

 

Perfect Equipment's Prop 65 Settlement Notice

 

Perfect Equipment is one of a few manufacturers/wholesalers of lead wheel weights. This settlement means the California market is gone, regardless of whether a formal legal ban passes or not. The wording of the settlement notice is unclear to me - I don't know whether just California retailers will be forbidden from using lead weights after this year, or whether even end users will be barred as well. No matter what, it seems likely that you will not be able to buy lead weights in California after the end of this year.

 

Lovely.

 

There's no proof and no data, but since it is no doubt cheaper to just stop selling to CA than it is to hire your own army of lawyers to fight CEH's army of sleazy bottom-feeding scumbag lawyers, they just settle.

 

Mitch, I assume that you and everyone else who sells lead wheel weights will simply just stop selling to California since that's easier and cheaper than trying to keep up with the laws, and much cheaper than risking being sued by a bunch of "environmentalist" thugs.

 

And that's how it'll be done. If you can't legislate it, use your scumbag lawyers to bully everyone into doing it your way.

[smiller]

 

If you can't legislate it, use your scumbag lawyers to bully everyone into doing it your way.

Regardless of how one feels about the wheel weight issue I do have to agree that this seems like abuse of process. Of course part of the problem seems to be in the very broad wording of Prop 65...

 

25249.5. Prohibition On Contaminating Drinking Water With Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity. No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly discharge or release a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water, notwithstanding any other provision or authorization of law except as provided in Section 25249.9.>

 

25249.9. Exemptions from Discharge Prohibition.

(a) Section 25249.5 shall not apply to any discharge or release that takes places less than twenty months subsequent to the listing of the chemical in question on the list required to be published under subdivision (a) of Section 25249.8.

(b) Section 25249.5 shall not apply to any discharge or release that meets both of the following criteria:

(1) The discharge or release will not cause any significant amount of the discharged or released chemical to enter any source of drinking water.

(2) The discharge or release is in conformity with all other laws and with every applicable regulation, permit, requirement, and order. In any action brought to enforce Section 25249.5, the burden of showing that a discharge or release meets the criteria of this subdivision shall be on the defendant.

 

What is a 'significant amount'? And the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that they are in compliance with 'all other laws and with every applicable regulation, permit, requirement, and orders' (a rather expensive challenge in itself), rather than requiring the plaintiff to indicate where they are not in compliance. Such wording seems ripe for abuse. But can't blame the legislators here, this was another gem approved by the initiative process.

 

[russell_bynum]

Such wording seems ripe for abuse.

 

As was the intent, I'm sure.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Mitch, I assume that you and everyone else who sells lead wheel weights will simply just stop selling to California since that's easier and cheaper than trying to keep up with the laws, and much cheaper than risking being sued by a bunch of "environmentalist" thugs.

 

The Mojo has been good, but not that good. One legal challenge - with all of its attorney fees, time off, and travel to California to fight it - would probably break me.

 

I'll probably stock non-lead wheel weights toward the end of this year to accomodate California customers. They won't be cheap, but you knew that already...

[smiller]

The Mojo has been good, but not that good. One legal challenge - with all of its attorney fees, time off, and travel to California to fight it - would probably break me.

Aw c'mon... all you would have to do is prove that the amount of lead from your weights that gets into the water supply isn't 'significant' and that you are in compliance with every law, applicable regulation, permit, requirement, and order in the state of California. Pocket change...

 

[ghaverkamp]

Show me data and I'll support this legislation.

 

There have been lots of sources of data linked to in this thread.

[ghaverkamp]

And that's how it'll be done. If you can't legislate it, use your scumbag lawyers to bully everyone into doing it your way.

 

This was legislated. It's unfortunate that you so dislike our nation's system of laws, but it hardly seems like a lawyer is a "scumbag" for representing clients in accordance with the laws of the state.

[russell_bynum]

And that's how it'll be done. If you can't legislate it, use your scumbag lawyers to bully everyone into doing it your way.

 

This was legislated. It's unfortunate that you so dislike our nation's system of laws, but it hardly seems like a lawyer is a "scumbag" for representing clients in accordance with the laws of the state.

 

It's a classic tactic. Fighting a lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive, and even if you've got the resources to fight, it's often cheaper to settle than to fight and win. We see this all over the place from personal injury cases to big time corporate stuff. That's a sleazy tactic and anyone who participates is a scumbag.

 

It's easier to settle, or in cases where the law is vague, to just steer WELL clear of the whole issue.

 

Of course, you know all this better than I do, no doubt.

 

Edit:

It wasn't legislated. Not clearly, anyway. Make the legislation vague and you can deny that you're going to do anything extreme while you're trying to get it passed. Once it passes, you've opened up the doors for the sleazy lawyers to use bully tactics like this.

[ghaverkamp]

It's a classic tactic. Fighting a lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive, and even if you've got the resources to fight, it's often cheaper to settle than to fight and win. We see this all over the place from personal injury cases to big time corporate stuff. That's a sleazy tactic and anyone who participates is a scumbag.

 

It's easier to settle, or in cases where the law is vague, to just steer WELL clear of the whole issue.

 

The law is on the books. The organization in this case wanted to enforce the law. They engaged legal counsel to do so.

 

Based on your analysis, anyone who sues anyone else is engaging in sleazy tactics, solely because litigation is expensive. Does that mean that those supported by the facts shouldn't be able to sue?

 

It wasn't legislated. Not clearly, anyway. Make the legislation vague and you can deny that you're going to do anything extreme while you're trying to get it passed. Once it passes, you've opened up the doors for the sleazy lawyers to use bully tactics like this.

 

Is it law? It was legislated.

 

Frankly, I don't see the vagueness. You and Seth seems caught up on "significant amount." That's not vagueness. That simply calls for a finding of fact. That's what laws do, and that's what trials and juries are for.

 

Do you really believe that the law would be better if its writers inserted actual numbers? If the law had to constantly be amended based on the most recent scientific data?

 

Imagine the same logic applied to the California basic speed law. Rather than simply restricting people from driving too fast for the conditions, the authors of the legislation could avoid such vagueness setting up cases for bottom-feeding, scumbag lawyers. Instead, they could define that the maximum speed in the rain is 40 MPH under any condition, maximum speed on roads with potholes up to 2" in depth is X, where with no potholes but uneven surfaces it is Y. And so on.

 

Did a person kill another? Well, I don't know. Is shoving a sharpened metal blade into them killing them? How about directing small projectiles at high speeds? Poisoning? What is poison, anyway?

 

Instead, information is presented to a jury, and the jury decides, based on that information, how to apply the facts to the law.

 

Can it be expensive? Ridiculously. Is that unfortunate? It definitely is. Does that mean that lawyers who take on a client who has what seems a pretty clear case (a USGS report that gives estimates of environmental distribution of lead in wheel weights, well known impacts of lead on humans, and a law that says the defendant can't do what they're doing) is a scumbag? I just don't see it.

[russell_bynum]

I just don't see it.

 

Fair enough.

[Ken H.]

Try as hard as you might Russell, it’s not B&W world we live in. Everything is grey; filled with variations, nuances, interpretations and conflicting objectives.

 

You decry government intervention, but then what government to define/quantify everything down to the nth degree. A bit of a dichotomy isn’t it?

[smiller]

Can it be expensive? Ridiculously. Is that unfortunate? It definitely is.

All I was saying is laws that can be loosely translated to 'whoever runs out of money first loses' doesn't do much to engender respect for the process. And yes, in this case a little more specificity would be helpful, or failing that at least placing the burden of proof on the proper party.

[ghaverkamp]

Can it be expensive? Ridiculously. Is that unfortunate? It definitely is.

All I was saying is laws that can be loosely translated to 'whoever runs out of money first loses' doesn't do much to engender respect for the process. And yes, in this case a little more specificity would be helpful, or failing that at least placing the burden of proof on the proper party.

 

But that's an affirmative defense. The burden is necessarily on the defendant.

 

First, it has to be proven that they've released a chemical that appears on the list, and that they've done so in the 20 months since the chemical was placed on the state's list.

 

Now, if those elements can be shown, the defendant can still be free from liability if it can show that no significant amount will reach a source of drinking water and that they were operating within other regulations.

[Matts_12GS]

Mitch, I assume that you and everyone else who sells lead wheel weights will simply just stop selling to California since that's easier and cheaper than trying to keep up with the laws, and much cheaper than risking being sued by a bunch of "environmentalist" thugs.

 

And that's how it'll be done. If you can't legislate it, use your scumbag lawyers to bully everyone into doing it your way.

 

Russell,

PM me your address, I'll send a care package...

[Bud]

 

My overall position as follows: 1. I resent government mettling in my life. 2. Reduction of lead in the environment is a worthwhile goal. 3. Let's go after the low-hanging fruit first....the stuff that we have data to show is a significant source of lead poisoning. 4. In trying economic times, legislation that makes things more expensive and makes it more difficult to do business should be avoided unless you've got a damn good reason (see #3).

 

 

Russell,

 

You're ignoring all the jobs that will be created to collect the weights, sort the weights, ship the weights, melt the weights, and then build something with all that lead.

 

No problem, Catalina Yachts is in CA and they need lead for keels on their sailboats.

[russell_bynum]

Try as hard as you might Russell, it’s not B&W world we live in. Everything is grey; filled with variations, nuances, interpretations and conflicting objectives.

 

You decry government intervention, but then what government to define/quantify everything down to the nth degree. A bit of a dichotomy isn’t it?

 

I think I've been pretty clear on this, and I think what I'm asking for is quite reasonable. All I want is for the government to justify the intervention. If there is justification (i.e. If lead wheel weights pose an actual risk), then it is in my best interests for us to stop using them and I will support this legislation. If there isn't justification, then I'd like for the government to bugger off....go work on stuff that actually matters instead of pushing out more laws that make things more complicated and expensive for me without any justification other than someone's political agenda.

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

I think I've been pretty clear on this, and I think what I'm asking for is quite reasonable. All I want is for the government to justify the intervention. If there is justification (i.e. If lead wheel weights pose an actual risk), then it is in my best interests for us to stop using them and I will support this legislation.

 

I think to be clear, you want incontrovertible evidence of a direct cause of lead from lost wheel weights is directly responsible (as opposed to other environmental sources of lead) for the harms of lead. Because if all you wanted was governmental evidence of lead being introduced from wheel weights, you've got that in this thread.

 

I get a kick out of the hypocrisy that comes out of these discussions.

[russell_bynum]

I think I've been pretty clear on this, and I think what I'm asking for is quite reasonable. All I want is for the government to justify the intervention. If there is justification (i.e. If lead wheel weights pose an actual risk), then it is in my best interests for us to stop using them and I will support this legislation.

 

I think to be clear, you want incontrovertible evidence of a direct cause of lead from lost wheel weights is directly responsible (as opposed to other environmental sources of lead) for the harms of lead. Because if all you wanted was governmental evidence of lead being introduced from wheel weights, you've got that in this thread.

 

I get a kick out of the hypocrisy that comes out of these discussions.

 

I'm not sure where you are seeing hypocrisy on my part.

 

I just want to see some relevant, recent, scientific study that shows that this is a problem. So far, there seems to be just one study that keeps getting mentioned, and it doesn't attribute x% of lead content in YYYYYY (drinking water, air, whatever) to lead wheel weights.

 

I don't understand why that's so much to ask for. I accept that government must legislate some things for the good of society as a whole. Sometimes those things make life more difficult/expensive for me personally, but if there's good reason for it, then I'm OK with that.

 

Help me understand why that is unreasonable.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I just want to see some relevant, recent, scientific study that shows that this is a problem. So far, there seems to be just one study that keeps getting mentioned, and it doesn't attribute x% of lead content in YYYYYY (drinking water, air, whatever) to lead wheel weights.

 

Root's study (the one you're talking about) concludes with, among other things, the following:

 

Consistent with U.S. policy to eliminate lead poisoning and protect the environment, the federal government should sponsor research to further document the deposition of wheel weights and evaluate the contribution to total lead exposure and effects on human health and ecosystems.

 

So even the first guy who sounded the alarm wants to see more research done.

 

The USGS said as much in 2006:

 

Much of the emphasis concerning lead wheel weights has been placed on losses during use. However, when viewing lead wheel weights through a model of stocks and flows, it appears that determining the fate of the unaccounted material may also need to be investigated more thoroughly, with a particular emphasis on the disposition of lead wheel weights collected by dealerships, fleet managers, repair shops, and tire retailers.

 

So between you, me, and these guys, that makes at least four of us that want to see more research done.

[SageRider]

Consistent with U.S. policy to eliminate lead poisoning and protect the environment, the federal government should sponsor research to further document the deposition of wheel weights and evaluate the contribution to total lead exposure and effects on human health and ecosystems

This quote is just another example of modern science. Develop policy based on hysteria, then spend money to produce "research" which will support the already decided upon conclusion.

Sounds like oncoming ice age / global warming.....

Wonder what's next.....

[DavidEBSmith]

Don't quite see how it's "hysteria" to say "we have a known toxic substance being introduced into the environment in unknown amounts and we should figure out if this is poisoning us", but that's just me.

 

Don't quite see how it's "hysteria" to say "we have a known toxic substance being introduced into the environment in unknown amounts and we can ensure this is not poisoning us at a relatively low cost by switching to a non-toxic substitute", either.

 

The argument of the anti-global-warming (and pro-lead-wheel-weight) folks seems to be that until there's 100% consensus on an issue, we shouldn't do anything. And of course, they can always find one (usually industry-sponsored) person to disagree, so we never act. If we applied that reasoning to tobacco, people would still be able to buy it. Oh, wait . . .

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Don't quite see how it's "hysteria" to say "we have a known toxic substance being introduced into the environment in unknown amounts and we can ensure this is not poisoning us at a relatively low cost by switching to a non-toxic substitute", either.

 

At retail prices, replacing 22,000 tons of lead wheel balancing weights with steel or zinc will cost us anywhere from $80 billion to $300 billion per year. Although I am willing to pay if a problem (and solution) can be demonstrated with some certainty, I don't agree that this is a relatively low cost.

[David]

What's a billion here and there, man. It's just money and we can print more of it.

[ghaverkamp]

The USGS said as much in 2006:

 

Much of the emphasis concerning lead wheel weights has been placed on losses during use. However, when viewing lead wheel weights through a model of stocks and flows, it appears that determining the fate of the unaccounted material may also need to be investigated more thoroughly, with a particular emphasis on the disposition of lead wheel weights collected by dealerships, fleet managers, repair shops, and tire retailers.

 

So between you, me, and these guys, that makes at least four of us that want to see more research done.

 

Of course, clipping that convenient part of the USGS report ignores the fact that it points to 2,000 tons of lead wheel weights lost during use, and it describes the distribution of that lead.

 

That they want research done to determine the disposition of the huge amount of unaccounted-for lead doesn't mean that there's been no harm found from the known lead.

 

Russell said he wanted data that there was actually a problem. The USGS report provides precisely that.

[ghaverkamp]

I get a kick out of the hypocrisy that comes out of these discussions.

 

I'm not sure where you are seeing hypocrisy on my part.

 

The hypocrisy lies in the convenient, varying demands for data. It's not just you. It's not just this topic.

 

I just want to see some relevant, recent, scientific study that shows that this is a problem. So far, there seems to be just one study that keeps getting mentioned, and it doesn't attribute x% of lead content in YYYYYY (drinking water, air, whatever) to lead wheel weights.

 

So, you would prefer government inaction until it can be absolutely certain of the precise nature of the problem. I gotcha. I think that's what I said.

[smiller]

So, you would prefer government inaction until it can be absolutely certain of the precise nature of the problem.

The report doesn't indicate that there's any problem, other than a certain amount of lead is unaccounted for. One might make an inference that if the lead is unaccounted for then it must be causing some kind of environmental contamination, but that conclusion involves a lot of guesswork. Perhaps the missing lead does present a real environmental issue and if so it would be a good idea to determine the nature and extent of the problem (again, if any), but wanting to see at least some additional data is not the same as insisting on absolute precision, rather just something beyond pure conjecture to justify the expense. It is possible that the money being spent on this concern might provide more beneficial environmental protections if directed elsewhere. Since monies for environmental protection aren't unlimited shouldn't there be an interest in seeing them spent in an as efficient and directed a way as possible?

[Ken H.]

I suppose a certain level of sensibly, i.e., lead released in the environment = bad, reducing the amount of lead released into the environment = good, is too much to expect?

 

Not (at the moment anyway!) pointing fingers at anybody specifically, but I’m always amazed at people who support something they believe in often on little more than speculation, but the same person wants things they don’t believe in justified to 5-nines.

 

[ghaverkamp]

The report doesn't indicate that there's any problem, other than a certain amount of lead is unaccounted for.

 

No. The report arrives at an estimate of 2,000 tons of lead lost during operation and describes how those losses have an impact.

 

It does go on to discuss unaccounted-for wheel weights and suggest that more study is required for that.

 

Since monies for environmental protection aren't unlimited shouldn't there be an interest in seeing them spent in an as efficient and directed a way as possible?

 

I don't see the connection between preventing the use of lead wheel weights and spending on environmental protection.

[smiller]

I don't see the connection between preventing the use of lead wheel weights and spending on environmental protection.

There is a cost associated with just about every type of environmental remediation, including the use of more expensive alternative materials for wheel weights.

 

but I’m always amazed at people who support something they believe in often on little more than speculation, but the same person wants things they don’t believe in justified to 5-nines.

While in most cases I'd be the first to agree with that (in fact I'm surprised that I haven't said it ) I don't think that's what's being said in the scope of this thread, or at least it's not what I'm saying anyway. I just think there has should be more of a linked causation than what I've seen so far. Not the 5-nines by any means, but something more.

[ghaverkamp]

I don't see the connection between preventing the use of lead wheel weights and spending on environmental protection.

There is a cost associated with just about every type of environmental remediation, including the use of more expensive alternative materials for wheel weights.

 

Sure, there's a cost. Cost != Funding.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I suppose a certain level of sensibly, i.e., lead released in the environment = bad, reducing the amount of lead released into the environment = good, is too much to expect?

 

That's a fine idea, but the benefit of any proposed action needs to be weighed against its cost. And if the cost is known to be large, then the problem had better be well-documented. Maybe there are cheaper alternatives than an outright ban, such as a more frequent street-sweeping program to collect lead weights from the roadside before passing vehicles grind them into dust.

 

We won't know for sure until someone studies the problem in more detail...