JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
The only possible way to prove the stuff was harmful would've been to wait
and see if kids got sick from it. That means you're using kids as test
subjects without consent. I believe that's illegal, and it's certainly
unethical. Instead, the opposite happened: The formulation was changed.
....
That's just absolute nonsense. It was in _WIDESPREAD_ use for years.
The test subjects were already there. Effects (if any) were there to be
observed (or not).

So you're saying doing a posterior study would be illegal is why the
epidemiology isn't available? That's simply ludicrous at best.

As for why the formulation was changed, see Robert Allison's response.
I hadn't thought of that as the root cause, but certainly goes far in
explaining why there's no findable citation on the EPA web site (which
always puzzled me because, like many, I had _presumed_ the change was
mandated).

Wouldn't be the first time, certainly. The cost of litigation became so
onerous that for a time there were no single-engine prop civilian-market
aircraft being made in the US for precisely that reason.

--