Replacing lead weights with US nickel coins

[rjack321]

Q: Isn't copper toxic to aquatic life?

Yes, copper ions are toxic. Actually nickel ions are even more toxic, but neither is as toxic as lead. As a case in point, consider the WHO drinking water standards:

• Lead: <10 µg/L, with goal of 0.
• Nickel: < 70 µg/L
• Copper: <2000µg/L

This coupled means that a lead weight is much more potent of a negative impact.

This is incorrect yes to people lead is more toxic. But you shouldn't be referencing drinking water standards at all because you're supposedly answering a question about aquatic life. And to aquatic life, copper is the most toxic element of the three...

Marine chronic standard for copper is 3.1 µg/L
Marine chronic standard for lead is 8.1 µg/L
Marine chronic standard for nickel is 8.2 µg/L
Source: National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Aquatic Life Criteria Table | US EPA

Copper is roughly twice as toxic to marine life as lead or nickel. It actually a bit worse because copper is more soluble. In the grand scheme of pollution though, scuba weight belts don't matter.

 

[lowwall]

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.

Scrap stainless steel works well if you can get it useful sizes with minimal machining,

Bismuth would be a good direct replacement since it is easily cast. Density is good at 9.78 g/cc. Problems are that it is brittle, so you'd want it in a pouch instead of strung onto a belt and that it currently costs around 4x as much as lead.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

At that point, there is little to worry about from casual handling of solid lead. The discussion becomes a pure cost/benefit analysis. Cost includes convenience.

Oh, and BTW, I still have a use (uses, actually) for leaded gasoline. It is readily available across the country. The US gumment gives me no choice. I suspect - but don't know - the EU is the same.

 

[Mobulai]

Oh, and BTW, I still have a use (uses, actually) for leaded gasoline. It is readily available across the country. The US gumment gives me no choice. I suspect - but don't know - the EU is the same.

What!? Where? How!? (Candid q)
Unless, Do you fly a piston?

And No, it’s banned in the EU now (since 2022, in effect 2025)

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

What!? Where? How!? (Candid q)
Unless, Do you fly a piston?

And No, it’s banned in the EU now (since 2022)

Yes. Yes I do on occasion. No autogas STC for me. 100 octane low lead it is. That was my old 1947 model Airknocker 11-AC. Had to stand in front of it to start it up. Was a real bitch to crank in cold WX.

Avgas also does not contain alcohol as does almost all road-use gasoline fuels available to me here. Alcohol mixed in the fuel destroys lots of plasticky parts on small gasoline powered engines so it also has utility in those old things.

 

[lowwall]

Oh, and BTW, I still have a use (uses, actually) for leaded gasoline. It is readily available across the country. The US gumment gives me no choice. I suspect - but don't know - the EU is the same.

What do you fly? There's probably an STC for some type of unleaded. Maybe not applicable if you are carrying paying passengers?

Edit - cross posted.

 

[Mobulai]

Yes. Yes I do on occasion. No autogas STC for me. 100 octane low lead it is. That was my old 1947 model Airknocker 11-AC. Had to stand in front of it to start it up. Was a real bitch to crank in cold WX.

View attachment 873080​

Avgas also does not contain alcohol as does almost all road-use gasoline fuels available to me here. Alcohol mixed in the fuel destroys lots of plasticky parts on small gasoline powered engines so it also has utility in those old things.

“That’s a good looking canary” thinks a part of me that used to be an octane head (theoretically — I used to do combustion research)
“Shame conversion to run on other fuels is not that feasible” thinks another part — I left it behind me

 

[Whitrzac]

I haven't seen bismuth mentioned yet.

Rotometals.com use to have pre-made bismuth soft weights, I believe they can still make them.
Price was about 3x their lead counterparts, but its a one time cost, all of mine are over 4 years old and still look new.

Bismuth Alloy REJECTS For Melting 94% Bismuth and 6% Tin 1 pound

sales@rotometals.com

www.rotometals.com

I ran a soft lead weight under the sink once and watched milk(lead dust/corrosion) pour out of it for 2 minutes, I switched to bismuth shortly after that.

I still use hard lead weights ocasionally as the protective layer that forms on them is less likely to be ground off vs a bag of shot. Or I use coated ones.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

What do you fly? There's probably an STC for some type of unleaded. Maybe not applicable if you are carrying paying passengers?

Edit - cross posted.

Even with an STC, I would not opt to pay/use it. There is generally only AVGAS on the field(s) and using car gas would mean trucking it in and having to lift heavy jerry cans way up high to pour it in. And if away from home base, that's not an option. Also, since most all unleaded road gas in my locality is all fornicated up with ethanol, it would be a no-go thing.

And if I did, it would only be becasue it's cheaper, not because I'm poisoning the atmosphere. in all 100 LL consumed nationwide I would bet my next paycheck that there is not enough concentration to do harm. For the entire fleet of cars on the road, I can see it, but not a few tens of thousands of occasionally flying aircraft.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

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.

You could always switch to eating purple urchins, plenty of those around here, they’re free, and they gotta go!