Underwater junk out of sight out mind.

[FredT]

I'd be suprised if a battery left underwater wouldn't continue to leach off lead although small amounts. IMHO, Roger

Not in any amount you would be able to find or track. Metallic lead is a precipitaion point for several minerals at near saturation balance in seawater. These minerals form a continuous shell that covers the lead, leaving only the non-lead bearing minerals exposed. Lead sulphate is already an insoluable salt in seawater. Remembr these carcasses had the cells open and the acid drained.

The carcasses were home to several species of invertibrates and a few bottom dwelling fish like blennies.

In all probability "cleaning them up" decreased both the species and critter count without doing any real help for the environment. It did waste a whole bunch of taxpayer funded manhours and filled up some hazardous waste dumps at taxpayer expense though. A few years late Andrew blew through and would have dispersed the piles anyway. Andrew did remove (disperse) about 2' thickness of coral encrustation from the piling under Fowey Rock Light, along with a century's worth of heavy construction debris anyway.

FT

 

[RTBCAT]

I do not know anything about lead and its reaction with sea water but I would rather not see discarded batteries on the bottom. Imagine you went fishing or crabing and found out the next day the reef was made of lead bad news. I am going to try and bring up the other two batteris when I find them again.

 

[FredT]

Metallic lead is hazardous if it splashes on you or impacts you at a high relative kinetic energy state.

In the first case the burns leave nasty scars (I have more than my share!)
In the second case it re-arranges bones or punches holes.

Lead SALTS are hazardous to carbon based life forms ONLY if disolved, and lead in gaseous form (requires significant heat to be applied) is nasty if you inhale it.

The two forms are NOT identical, no matter what the idiots writing in the newpaper think!

I would love to see a cost/benefit analysis of the lead related effects of banning Tetraethyl lead in fuel. Banning lead oxide in paint to be used in houses with small children may have had some reasonable benefit relative to it's cost, but most of the "lead scare" is simply that. The remains of a couple of PR pushes by various groups to drive donations based mostly on "junk science" reports, and the media's inability to grasp the differences.

FT

 

[RTBCAT]

Lead is fuel is burnt and turned into a gas which goes into the air and to the water both of which we need to in order to live. With amount of fuel we use a little in one car times all the cars over time must have been a huge amount of lead. Even if lead batteries are harmless? I do not want to dive and come across garbage. Recycle them it has to be cheaper in the long run than mining new lead. Just thought I would rather see somthing alive and intersting than a box with two knobs on it.

 

[RogerL.]

we go whether it be on land or at sea. When I was growing up I was taught to use what we brought and haul off the garbage. In fact we used to go camping and police the area before we left and take along some of the stuff others had considered to heavy or were just to lazy to carry out. I've never figured out how a person can haul stuff in with them and then be to lazy to carry the refuse out when they're done- it's sure a lot lighter going out. It's just a shame that more people don't practice that policy. It seems today that most think - "dilution is the solution", no matter what the waste. I'm now off my soapbox, Roger

 

[FredT]

Roger, I agree that as a general policy it's a good thing to pick up the trash. The batteries in this particular case however were fully integrated into artifical reefs.

RBCAT.
This is getting a bit off topic, but in what FORM is the residue of tetraethyl lead discharged? Is it soluable? Is there ANY clean statistical evidence the residue caused harm to ANY organic life? Is the removal of that waste stream from the system worth about $1,000 in "hidden taxes" due to mandated equipment for every vehicle used in the US + several hundred $ a year in increased fuel costs? Please do your own research.

HINT: Lead was pulled from fuel not because of the lead hazard. It was pulled because it blinded the expensive catalytic converters mandated by the Clean Air Act. To sell the hidden tax the lead itself was demonized in the press.

BTW Galena is a fairly common mineral.

FT

 

[drdiver1952]

Here's a couple of links on benefits of banning lead in gasoline.

http://www.meca.org/jahia/Jahia/engineName/filemanager/pid/229/lead0103%20(final).pdf?actionreq=actionFileDownload&fileItem=451

http://www.unicef.org/wes/files/lead_en.pdf

Cumulative effects of lead exposure to kids has been documented for many years with extraordinarily low levels of lead shown to produce detectable effects on neurological functioning.

Points on the immobility of metallic lead and lead salts in seawater are correct.

Dennis

Roger, I agree that as a general policy it's a good thing to pick up the trash. The batteries in this particular case however were fully integrated into artifical reefs.

RBCAT.
This is getting a bit off topic, but in what FORM is the residue of tetraethyl lead discharged? Is it soluable? Is there ANY clean statistical evidence the residue caused harm to ANY organic life? Is the removal of that waste stream from the system worth about $1,000 in "hidden taxes" due to mandated equipment for every vehicle used in the US + several hundred $ a year in increased fuel costs? Please do your own research.

HINT: Lead was pulled from fuel not because of the lead hazard. It was pulled because it blinded the expensive catalytic converters mandated by the Clean Air Act. To sell the hidden tax the lead itself was demonized in the press.

BTW Galena is a fairly common mineral.

FT

 

[DennisS]

I worked on a project off the Mississippi delta in the gulf. It involved taking a lot of cores and measuring sedimentation rates. A group was measuring trace metals, one of the metals was lead. They had steady concentrations throughout the cores except at the upper levels. The levels showed a decline all the way to the surface,- the most recent layers. They were unsure why and checked their methods, and couldn't come up with an answer.

Later they plotted the declines with the phase out of lead in gasoline and it matched up perfectly. They were bothered by the fact that the matchup was a perfect curve. The Mississippi drains a large area and its pretty amazing that the lead levels would drop right along with the phase out.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1985Sci...230..439T&db_key=GEN

 

[FredT]

Later they plotted the declines with the phase out of lead in gasoline and it matched up perfectly. They were bothered by the fact that the matchup was a perfect curve. The Mississippi drains a large area and its pretty amazing that the lead levels would drop right along with the phase out.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1985Sci...230..439T&db_key=GEN

The questions NOT asked are:

1. Did the high levels started on a level equal to or lower than the currerent levels and then steadily increase from about 1910 to the phase out, then drop as it was phased out? If so it may be a solid tie to leaded fuel.

2. Have the clinical issues with pediatric lead poisoning significantly dropped in the same time frame?

DrDiver;

The first link is broken from here, the Unicef link is part of the propaganda mill with no hard data linking leaded fuel to pediatric lead poisoning. It just paints with a broad brush with no hard traceable data.

 

[drdiver1952]

Would consult the references in the UNICEF article on this.

You're hoeing a hard row on this. Lead poisoning effects go WAY back and you won't find much reputable science that disputes its effects.

The best data goes back to lead based paints.

You can't base pediatric data on phase out because you are talking about a substance that doesn't go away. You are not talking about dioxins or PCBs here.

Will get back to you on more references when I have time, got some personal stuff going on now.

Peace,

Dennis

The questions NOT asked are:

1. Did the high levels started on a level equal to or lower than the currerent levels and then steadily increase from about 1910 to the phase out, then drop as it was phased out? If so it may be a solid tie to leaded fuel.

2. Have the clinical issues with pediatric lead poisoning significantly dropped in the same time frame?



DrDiver;

The first link is broken from here, the Unicef link is part of the propaganda mill with no hard data linking leaded fuel to pediatric lead poisoning. It just paints with a broad brush with no hard traceable data.