I don’t think anyone is denying that lead shouldn’t be sprinkled on toast with breakfast. However, the reasonable part comes with the risk versus reward equation. GA is the “largest source of lead emissions” because it is the only one left. And, as has been pointed out repeatedly in the 100UL debate, that market is tiny. So, logically, the “largest remaining source of lead emissions” is also probably the smallest statistically-significant source there ever was. So, it is entirely reasonable to question whether the risk associated with those emissions is really so great as to warrant yet another nail in what is increasingly looking like the regulatory coffin of general aviation. Or, is this another case of special-interest-manufactured paranoia driving unwarranted concern in the public? (I hereby refer you to the cases of numerous sweeteners and food additives that are banned in the US but not elsewhere and vice versa as examples.)
Point being, I (and many others I’m sure) are all for unleaded fuel. But, if the risk is as low as I suspect it actually is, I’d rather we get the right solution, not the chosen-by-committee, engineered-by-elected-lawyers, right-now solution.