This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Which of these gasoline additives/components would be most harmful, and which would be the ones which provide human central-nervous system activity (such as NMDA receptor antagonism)? It seems most articles claim the health risks have been watched over by various regulating authorities, and are at least not carcinogens, etc. 216.227.117.35 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contributors to this article should be mindful of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If one considers that history of gasoline/petrol - a long long list of materials have been added, professionally and otherwise. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I found this list very useful -- I remembered an additive but had forgotten the name. I've added some infomation on how the U.S. regulates fuel additives as a category. I think other countries do the same, so please contribute. I hope this article does not get deleted (though merging to make a single fuel additives articles for diesel, gasoline, aviation fuel, etc., would be fine). 92.20.47.105 (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The target is quite large and well-written. Merging this list in would delete its quality, which I don't think would be helpful. Therefore, I'd argue that its better to leave this list where it is, and improve in situ. Klbrain (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]