Lead dive weights in public swimming pools? What about stainless or tungsten shot weights?

[pwoolf]

Reading through your two discussion threads, it seems Like you wantonly brush aside and ignore the information/data that does not agree with your position and elevate the data that does, all the while shrouding your position in an "Ecco friendly" wrapper.

#Virtue Signaling

-Z

I appreciate your concern, but I respectfully disagree with your characterization. My approach has been to show all my work, acknowledge uncertainties, and actively seek corrections. For example, when someone pointed out an error in my lead corrosion rate calculations in the coin weights discussion, I thanked them and incorporated that correction into my analysis. That's why I'm deliberately conservative in my estimates and transparent about my assumptions - to invite exactly this kind of peer review and refinement.

Environmental issues often get polarized into binary positions - either catastrophic or completely harmless. But reality is usually more nuanced, especially with complex issues like metal corrosion in different water environments. As a chemical engineer, I believe we make better decisions when we can examine the actual data, discuss uncertainties, and work together to understand what's really happening.

My goal isn't to virtue signal or sell products - it's to understand the impact of our diving practices and explore better alternatives. That's why I'm investigating and sharing information about multiple solutions at different price points, from coins to shot weights to machined stainless steel. Each has its own trade-offs in terms of cost, practicality, and environmental impact.

I welcome specific critiques of my methodology or data. If you've seen information that contradicts my analysis, I'd genuinely like to review it and adjust my calculations accordingly. Science advances through this kind of rigorous discussion, not through dismissing opposing viewpoints.

 

[tursiops]

Science advances through this kind of rigorous discussion, not through dismissing opposing viewpoints.

Science most readily advances when worthwhile questions are asked and significant problems are addressed.

 

[pwoolf]

Science most readily advances when worthwhile questions are asked and significant problems are addressed.

The history of lead regulation teaches us an important lesson about 'worthwhile questions' and 'significant problems.' When we first identified lead's toxicity, we didn't immediately address all lead sources at once. Instead, we tackled them incrementally as we developed viable alternatives and better understood exposure pathways.

Consider the evolution: We removed lead from paint when we found children were ingesting paint chips. We eliminated lead from gasoline when we understood its atmospheric impacts. We're replacing lead pipes as we recognize their role in water contamination. Each of these changes faced initial resistance with arguments that the problems weren't significant enough to warrant action or that alternatives weren't practical.

The diving industry's continued use of lead weights represents one of the few remaining deliberate applications of uncoated lead in direct human contact. While the acute risks may be lower than historical lead exposures like leaded gasoline, this doesn't make the question of alternatives insignificant. The diving community has an opportunity to proactively address this legacy use of lead, especially now that we have viable alternatives in materials like stainless steel, cupronickel alloys, and other dense metals.

The scientific question here isn't just about measuring lead exposure from dive weights - it's about how we can best transition away from an obsolete toxic material when better options exist. This aligns with broader societal efforts to eliminate unnecessary lead exposure, as reflected in regulations like RoHS for electronics, TSCA for wheel weights, and lead tackle laws for fishing equipment.

The significance of a problem isn't just measured by its immediate impact, but by our ability to solve it responsibly. When solutions exist, shouldn't we at least explore them?

 

[tursiops]

The history of lead regulation teaches us an important lesson about 'worthwhile questions' and 'significant problems.' When we first identified lead's toxicity, we didn't immediately address all lead sources at once. Instead, we tackled them incrementally as we developed viable alternatives and better understood exposure pathways.

Consider the evolution: We removed lead from paint when we found children were ingesting paint chips. We eliminated lead from gasoline when we understood its atmospheric impacts. We're replacing lead pipes as we recognize their role in water contamination. Each of these changes faced initial resistance with arguments that the problems weren't significant enough to warrant action or that alternatives weren't practical.

The diving industry's continued use of lead weights represents one of the few remaining deliberate applications of uncoated lead in direct human contact. While the acute risks may be lower than historical lead exposures like leaded gasoline, this doesn't make the question of alternatives insignificant. The diving community has an opportunity to proactively address this legacy use of lead, especially now that we have viable alternatives in materials like stainless steel, cupronickel alloys, and other dense metals.

The scientific question here isn't just about measuring lead exposure from dive weights - it's about how we can best transition away from an obsolete toxic material when better options exist. This aligns with broader societal efforts to eliminate unnecessary lead exposure, as reflected in regulations like RoHS for electronics, TSCA for wheel weights, and lead tackle laws for fishing equipment.

The significance of a problem isn't just measured by its immediate impact, but by our ability to solve it responsibly. When solutions exist, shouldn't we at least explore them?

You like to talk, but you don't like to listen. Bye.

 

[lostsheep]

Without solving the argument over if god gave us dominion over the earth or if we should all be hugging trees, I'm going to comment on the only thing I am kinda qualified to talk about.

Machining weights is NOT the way to go in this application.

 

[pwoolf]

Without solving the argument over if god gave us dominion over the earth or if we should all be hugging trees, I'm going to comment on the only thing I am kinda qualified to talk about.

Machining weights is NOT the way to go in this application.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the manufacturing challenges. What aspects of machining make it unsuitable for dive weights in your experience? Are there other manufacturing methods you think would work better?

 

[Mike_4635]

In a sport that is already expensive and loosing active divers (younger generation less likely to join the sport), add most diving is in low income areas, I don’t see this happening.

 

[stretchthepenn]

That said, if I were managing a public pool, I wouldn't allow any soft weights (i.e., bagged shot). Not just because of the lead oxide that rubs off of lead shot. But because they are perfect vehicles for transferring contaminants and dirt from wherever else they are used and if a bag ruptures, you have a mess that is difficult to clean up.

Mmmm...not really. The basic cleanup wouldn't be that difficult. Every commercial pool has a vacuum system of some sort, be it built-in or portable, and spilled lead shot would be simple to remove.

The real problem is collecting the vacuumed shot in a convenient area, but even that's not a huge deal. An inline leaf filter would likely do the trick.

 

[pwoolf]

In a sport that is already expensive and loosing active divers (younger generation less likely to join the sport), add most diving is in low income areas, I don’t see this happening.

You make an interesting observation about younger generations and diving participation. While cost is certainly a barrier, we're also seeing younger people make different choices than previous generations - sometimes prioritizing environmental impact even when it means paying more. The electric vehicle market provides an interesting parallel: EVs generally cost more upfront, yet they're seeing strong adoption among younger buyers who value their environmental benefits.

I'm curious about your perspective on this generational shift in diving. Are you seeing younger divers express different priorities or concerns compared to established divers? Understanding these changing attitudes could help us make diving both more accessible and more aligned with evolving environmental values.

The economic challenge you raise is very real, especially in regions where diving provides vital tourism income. At the same time, the diving industry has historically adapted to changing expectations - from the introduction of the Buoyancy Compensator Device (BCD) to the adoption of dive computers to track nitrogen loading. How do you think we could balance environmental improvements with keeping diving accessible to everyone?

 

[tursiops]

How do you think we could balance environmental improvements with keeping diving accessible to everyone?

More emphasis on neutral buoyancy and finning techniques and buoyancy control in general will likely do more for the environment than replacing lead weights with anything that costs more.