Replacing lead weights with US nickel coins

[BRT]

Actually, you can start using non-toxic weights today--U.S. nickels are readily available at any local bank!

As for hand washing - while that helps, lead particles still contaminate dive gear and transfer to skin during use. Why accept *any* lead exposure when there's an accessible, affordable alternative?

I, for one, hope there are a lot of divers that go to nickel weights. I would like to find them a lot more than lead weights.

 

[BRT]

100% This again is where coins *could* come in.

The current best price I've found for cupronickel coins is the Pakistani 5 rupee coin (4 lbs for $4.36 USD equivalent). I list a bunch of global coins on the coin calculator.

Many countries have cupronickel coins in daily circulation, and our use of them as diving equipment does not impact their financial function. I'm constantly adding more as I find them!

Copper is $4/lb. Nickel is $7/lb. If you can buy 5 rupee coins that are a mix of copper and nickel for a dollar a pound, you should buy lots. However, knowing a few East Indians, I have my doubts that any survive in the wild.

 

[pwoolf]

I, for one, hope there are a lot of divers that go to nickel weights. I would like to find them a lot more than lead weights.

Very true! It would make treasure hunting a thing again! I'd rather dive for dollars than hazardous waste

 

[runsongas]

many old uncoated lead weights were already cast years if not decades ago. I have US Divers weights that are probably as old as my Dad.

Arguing against using already casted lead weights is not environmentally sound, you will incur emissions for the minting of your coins. its the same as replacing a functional 20 year old honda civic with an electric car.

 

[tursiops]

There is an old Italian phrase -- "Fare un buco nell'aqua" -- that applies to this thread.

When one is assessing risk of some activity, one needs to take into account the likelihood of an adverse outcome versus the impact of the outcome. In the case of divers using lead weights, both the likelihood and the impact are low regarding lead significantly entering the environment from the normal use of lead weights. intentional dumping of one's weights is a very rare event as well; loss of weight pocket is more common. Either way, the impact is low.

The argument that you should do anything you can to reduce any possible negative impact to the environment is a feel-good argument, not one that is very meaningful. If you truly believe that, then you should make a list of all the negative impacts you have on the environment and put your effort towards those that are higher risk to the environment than using lead weights while diving, for example using your automobile, using any plastics, using anything made from wood, eating beef, etc.

 

[Tanks A Lot]

[...]
The argument that you should do anything you can to reduce any possible negative impact to the environment is a feel-good argument, not one that is very meaningful. If you truly believe that, then you shojld make a list of all the negative impact you have on the environment and put your effort towards those that are higher risk to the environment than using lead weights while diving, for example using your automobile, using any plastics, using anything made from wood, eating beef, etc.

This is an argument that has always eluded me. Say I was eating both beef and chicken. I want to do something for the environment, but I also love beef. Chicken is alright, but I can live without it. Beef is arguably worse for the environment than chicken. Anyhow, I end up giving up chicken.

I assume that you are not saying that giving up chicken would be of no real value. Just because I can do more doesn't mean I can't start with the small things, especially if they are low effort. I can always do more, but why not do something that doesn't cost me much? In the above example, giving up chicken hasn't impacted me much, I was indifferent to it to begin with. Sure, giving up beef would have been "better", but that doesn't mean giving up chicken was all of a sudden of no value at all.

As I have explained above, the way that lead impacts you may be significantly different from how it impacts the lives of other people. I believe the argument that you could focus on other, bigger things is no counterargument at all, it rather is a deflection.

If a person chooses to tackle a problem, even if just a tiny one, why are we telling them to focus on a bigger problem? Why are we not encouraging them to continue with what they are doing?

Using already cast lead in circulation is a real argument, as it will have a significantly lower impact on the environment than mining new metals. But outright saying that no change should happen, just because its been always like this, is not the right path either. There is a real discussion to be had here and I believe @pwoolf has a commendable goal. It may very well be true that a quick change has net detrimental effects if new metals must be mined. But I believe no one could argue that its the right path for some time in the future. How and when this should happen is not something I claim to know.

 

[tursiops]

If a person chooses to tackle a problem, even if just a tiny one, why are we telling them to focus on a bigger problem? Why are we not encouraging them to continue with what they are doing?

Should we not be encouraging them to put their effort towards something that actually makes a difference?

My argument is not quite what you seem to think it is, by the way. If they are actually solving the tiny problem they are working on, great, although it is always better to work on a more significant problem. My concern is that they are wasting their effort...not solving the problem. I'd rather see them solve a problem. Or, at least, contribute to its solution. The Italian proverb applies: they are trying to bail out the ocean with a bucket. Is that really contributing, or just a wasted effort?

 

[lowwall]

While it is easy to control temperatures in industrial settings, it is far from trivial without tools. Having worked in Africa for a long time, I had the "delight" to see how diving weights are usually poured down there. Rip apart the innards of an old car battery, throw them into a pot, and chuck it onto a fire. Now, of course, the whole pot must start to fume; how else would you know that all the unwanted stuff has burned off (Insert irony tag here)? And only after copious amounts of fumes are produced is your mixture ready, and the weight is being cast.

I seriously doubt they were inhaling lead fumes, there is a large temperature gap between the melting point of lead and where it starts to give off fumes. Given the value of firewood in most of Africa, it would be cost prohibitive to get and keep a hot enough fire for lead vapor to be an issue.

Which is not to say that what they were doing was safe. Since lead vapor is invisible the smoke was certainly from burning plastics and other junk mixed in with the lead, none of which good for your long term health when inhaled. For that matter, neither is wood smoke. There are a lot of efforts to cut down on long term wood smoke exposure in developing nations.

As always, it comes down to relative harms. What are the options for these people? What are the costs for substitutes?

As far as DMs who handle weights regularly, the risks are negligible. Of course, it's always a good idea to wash your hands before eating.

IMO, the OP has come up with a cumbersome "solution" to a something that's not a legitimate problem.

edit - the quote below from tursiops is from an earlier edit. I have a bad habit of posting what's basically a first draft and then editing after I've reread my post and thought a bit.

 

[tursiops]

IMO, the OP has come up with a cumbersome, albeit workable, solution to a something that's not a legitimate problem.

 

[Tanks A Lot]

I seriously doubt they were inhaling lead fumes, there is a large temperature gap between the melting point of lead and where it starts to give off fumes. Given the value of firewood in most of Africa, it would be cost prohibitive to get and keep a hot enough fire for lead vapor to be an issue.
[...]

You are most certainly correct in saying that the temperature where lead starts to vaporise is far higher than will be achieved on a fire.

However, if you have seen such a concoction as I mentioned above boil, there in no doubt that lead particles inevitably make into into the air. Some lead will rise by clinging to the rising plastic fumes.

There is a very clear reason why government officials got involved to raise awareness. And I can assure you that this has nothing to do with the plastic which gets burned by literary everyone down there. This is of course a serious problem, albeit a different one.


If this actually solves something in the bigger picture is up for debate, I concede that. But focusing solely on the enduser, the diver, may not fairly represent the issue. The mining and production all have serious flaws. And yes, other metals do so as well, but heavy metals are known to be far worse.

I'm quite frankly astonished by the pushback, when every organisation imaginable warns of the downsides of lead and the amount of scientific literature on the subject is nothing but exhaustive - and probably more important - conclusive. There are reasons we have moved on from using this material in many places, for example fuel, water pipes, paints, food containers, most roofing and many many more.

I remember visiting a closed lead mine in Slovenia turned into a museum. It clearly showed the negative health impacts that the mining had on the miners and incidentally the surrounding community.

OPs solution may not be the best solution either, as both copper and zinc are known to be extremely toxic to marine environments and fish in particular.

Is this the best thing that OP can choose to make a positive change in the world? Most definitely not! But waiving it away as futile is not correct either. I have no clear answer what the correct way forward is. But what I do know from purely looking at the chemistry and physics is that better alternatives to lead exist. And that alone warrants a closer look.