"Green" bullets article

[skem2008]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/03/04/green.bullets/index.html

[socal2310]

The results were inconclusive. Those who ate the lead-shot meat had slightly higher blood-lead levels than those who didn't, but none of the 738 people in the study had levels above the government's threshold for danger.Is inconclusive the euphemism for results we don't like and intend to ignore?

Ryan

[bwiese]

Is inconclusive the euphemism for results we don't like and intend to ignore?

Ryan

No, it's legitimately inconclusive - because that's no proof that the lead in the meat actually lead to higher lead levels.

It could be from reloading using melting lead fumes, for example.

Also, it appears lead ingestion for shooters is the lead vapor from *primers*, not bullet. Primers use compounds like lead azide - Pb(N3)2 - as their explosive component. This is why older indoor police ranges with not-the-best ventilation require 'lead-free' primers. The bullets still have lead in 'em.

[CCWFacts]

The fact that they had higher levels means some lead is getting through. They probably just don't consume a huge amount of hunted meat so the amount that comes through isn't that significant.

But there's no such thing as a "harmless" level of lead. Less is always better. I don't know why someone would choose to expose himself or his family to lead unnecessarily. And with all the non-lead bullet options out there right now, there's no reason to continue using lead for hunting.

The NRA, and the shooting community, should get behind the lead-free movement. Lead is toxic. We should minimize the amount of it we expose ourselves to and the amount that we dump into the environment.

[socal2310]

No, it's legitimately inconclusive - because that's no proof that the lead in the meat actually lead to higher lead levels.

It could be from reloading using melting lead fumes, for example.

Also, it appears lead ingestion for shooters is the lead vapor from *primers*, not bullet. Primers use compounds like lead azide - Pb(N3)2 - as their explosive component. This is why older indoor police ranges with not-the-best ventilation require 'lead-free' primers. The bullets still have lead in 'em.

Ah, thank you.

Ryan

[nobody_special]

But there's no such thing as a "harmless" level of lead.
Many substances are harmless at concentrations below a certain threshold.

[BTF/PTM]

Why hasn't someone developed a polymer bullet yet? Something non toxic or better yet undigestible so it passes thru an animal or person that swallows it...or why haven't more plastic-shelled, steel-shot rounds been developed? I've seen 'em for .22 guns, why not more calibers?

p.s. - there is such a thing as a harmless level of lead, just like there is such a thing as a harmful level of vitamin C or oxygen.

[yellowfin]

I wonder what the price and volume that would have to be necessary for steel core bullets and steel cased rounds to be produced in the US on the mass scale they were for Russia, China, etc. The politicians and unions always harp on how important it is to keep the US steel industry afloat, and now with ammo in record demand it'd be a good time to do it.

[chris]

The fact that they had higher levels means some lead is getting through. They probably just don't consume a huge amount of hunted meat so the amount that comes through isn't that significant.

But there's no such thing as a "harmless" level of lead. Less is always better. I don't know why someone would choose to expose himself or his family to lead unnecessarily. And with all the non-lead bullet options out there right now, there's no reason to continue using lead for hunting.

The NRA, and the shooting community, should get behind the lead-free movement. Lead is toxic. We should minimize the amount of it we expose ourselves to and the amount that we dump into the environment.

way to give into the anti gunners this is exactly what they want. also think of the ramifications of your thought process. it will start at hunting then into target shooting. do not let the camels nose get any further into the tent it's allready in with the lead ban we have now. have you seen how much pistol ammo is that is lead free?

don't give an inch to this. we have lost too much to go back. and no i'm not fearmongering this is the truth all of you here should know dam well how politicians in this state think about guns and agreeing to this is going to hurt us in the long run.

example for you Barnes .44 mag is 25 bucks for 20 rounds. oh and this is just the bullet not a loaded round. unless you are rich and can dump alot of money for ammo this will make people stop shooting all together. this is what the anti-gunners want. do you?

sure Barnes makes a great bullet but i like the FREEDOM of choice not being told what ammo i can use. this is wrong no matter how you slice it.

so in giving into the anti gunners BS think again the divide and conquer mentality will doom us all. this is not to say that we should not take care of the enviroment hunters do a better job at the enviroment than enviromentalists. just consider the political make up of this state and the Congress and of course Obama.

don't give into this. it is divide and counquer plain and simple as i stated before. all of you here should know damb well on what our state thinks of gun ownership let alone hunting. this is a dangerous game we are playing and some of you are playing right into it. do not trust the government we have today. any support from the gun owning community will be exploited.

[CCWFacts]

Why hasn't someone developed a polymer bullet yet? Something non toxic or better yet undigestible so it passes thru an animal or person that swallows it...or why haven't more plastic-shelled, steel-shot rounds been developed? I've seen 'em for .22 guns, why not more calibers?

Polymer bullets would be too light (too low density) to work in rifle calibers. There are other options though.

p.s. - there is such a thing as a harmless level of lead, just like there is such a thing as a harmful level of vitamin C or oxygen.

The harmless level of lead is zero, especially for fetuses and babies. Vitamin C is safe within a wide range of intakes. There's a non-zero level of radiation exposure that is optimal. But for lead, mercury, asbestos and some things like that, the optimal level is none.

The Romans already knew this:

Water conducted through earthen pipes is more wholesome than that through lead; indeed that conveyed in lead must be injurious,g because from it white lead is obtained, and this is said to be injurious to the human system.

[hawk84]

I know in California there is a push to ban lead in bullets entirely, which is a great way to make many people not be able to shoot at all, bullets with lead are expensive enough already, 30+ bucks for 100rds .40S&W, 10 bucks for 20 rounds of .223, over a dollar a pop for 30-06

that being said, lead is obviously not the most friendly element for the environment I think the real problem comes from shotgun shells. The thousands of birdshot bb's get eaten by birds etc and that is where the real environmental problem lies. go out and shoot off 200 1 1/8 oz birdshot shells and you just spread 14 lbs of lead that is almost impossible to recover, lead in small enough pieces that birds ingest it and it is now in the food chain


I think we should treat it like garbage, it is illegal to litter, but we have places that are designated for garbage(ie city dumps) in much the same way we should have places that are ok to use lead bullets(firing ranges) but if one ones to hunt, be required to use a more environmentally friendly metal(copper/steel---uh oh, that brings up armor piercing rounds) In this way people could still practice(where they go thru hundreds or thousands of bullets) with a more cost effective round, but have to pay an extra dollar or so for hunting ammunition, which they use at much lower quanties, spending 2 dollars for a copper 30-06 round to drop a 300 lb deer vs spending a dollar is really meaningless, but spending 2 dollars a round vs a dollar a round at a range where you go thru 100 rds or more adds up quick


We all have a duty to protect our enviroment, that duty does not have to conflict with out ability to protect ourselves, i could care less about giving an intruder lead poisoning

[scr83jp]

The fact that they had higher levels means some lead is getting through. They probably just don't consume a huge amount of hunted meat so the amount that comes through isn't that significant.

But there's no such thing as a "harmless" level of lead. Less is always better. I don't know why someone would choose to expose himself or his family to lead unnecessarily. And with all the non-lead bullet options out there right now, there's no reason to continue using lead for hunting.

The NRA, and the shooting community, should get behind the lead-free movement. Lead is toxic. We should minimize the amount of it we expose ourselves to and the amount that we dump into the environment.Lead ammo has been in use in North America over 500 years so these scare tactics don't wash,too much propaganda by the anti crowd: hunting,shooting & possession of firearms.,etc I've been exposed to lead for 67 years and I haven't had any problems from it .All metals are toxic :iron,copper,aluminum,zinc,silver,gold,etc

[scr83jp]

I know in California there is a push to ban lead in bullets entirely, which is a great way to make many people not be able to shoot at all, bullets with lead are expensive enough already, 30+ bucks for 100rds .40S&W, 10 bucks for 20 rounds of .223, over a dollar a pop for 30-06

that being said, lead is obviously not the most friendly element for the environment I think the real problem comes from shotgun shells. The thousands of birdshot bb's get eaten by birds etc and that is where the real environmental problem lies. go out and shoot off 200 1 1/8 oz birdshot shells and you just spread 14 lbs of lead that is almost impossible to recover, lead in small enough pieces that birds ingest it and it is now in the food chain


I think we should treat it like garbage, it is illegal to litter, but we have places that are designated for garbage(ie city dumps) in much the same way we should have places that are ok to use lead bullets(firing ranges) but if one ones to hunt, be required to use a more environmentally friendly metal(copper/steel---uh oh, that brings up armor piercing rounds) In this way people could still practice(where they go thru hundreds or thousands of bullets) with a more cost effective round, but have to pay an extra dollar or so for hunting ammunition, which they use at much lower quanties, spending 2 dollars for a copper 30-06 round to drop a 300 lb deer vs spending a dollar is really meaningless, but spending 2 dollars a round vs a dollar a round at a range where you go thru 100 rds or more adds up quick


We all have a duty to protect our enviroment, that duty does not have to conflict with out ability to protect ourselves, i could care less about giving an intruder lead poisoningCondors are scavengers & dumps are repositors of lead waste plus many other metals & chemicals.They could be dump feeders loading up on lead.

[hawk84]

Lead ammo has been in use in North America over 500 years so these scare tactics don't wash,too much propaganda by the anti crowd: hunting,shooting & possession of firearms.,etc I've been exposed to lead for 67 years and I haven't had any problems from it .All metals are toxic :iron,copper,aluminum,zinc,silver,gold,etc

all metals are toxic, lead is just more toxic, its not a scare tactic at all, but simple fact, this is really one of the most absurd things I've heard on here, there is a reason we went to *unleaded* gasoline, *unleaded* paint, etc, and it has absolutely nothing to do with some anti's aversion to firearms, it has to do with the *FACT* that lead is a highly toxic metal that shouldn't be injested/inhaled

[Juno05]

I wonder what it would cost for bullet manufacturers to switch to lead-free rounds. New molds, machining equipment, so on. It might be a capital cost they don't want to go through with, environment be damned.

[hawk84]

I wonder what it would cost for bullet manufacturers to switch to lead-free rounds. New molds, machining equipment, so on. It might be a capital cost they don't want to go through with, environment be damned.

hmm.....that flys in the face of the numerous manufactures that now switched *voluntarily* to producing lead free ammo


*eviroment be damned* what sort of planet do you wish to leave to your children/grandchildren, Im only 25 years old and I can remember days not 15 years ago where I couldnt see the hills 3 miles from my house because of airpollution, we NEED these laws if we want clean air/clean water/ clean food, if you don't want these things, go suck on the exhaust of a 63 chevy

[hawk84]

http://children.webmd.com/tc/lead-poisoning-symptoms


# Learning problems
# Inability to concentrate
# Memory loss

[chris]

wow so many here ready to cave in. may god help us. if any of you think a lead ammo ban will stop at that think again. you guys are oblivious to what you are agreeing to support.

[hawk84]

wow so many here ready to cave in. may god help us. if any of you think a lead ammo ban will stop at that think again. you guys are oblivious to what you are agreeing to support.

if people would actually read what other write you wouldn't jump to such a ridiculous conclusion as me "support"ing a lead ammo ban




you are oblivious to what i actually wrote a half screen up, "god help us" when the people that are fighting for gun rights can't even read a simple paragraph and understand it

[ravenbkp]

Sorry Hawk this is about power and control not science, the antis do not give a rats about condors etc......leadless lines are a specialty item developed because the manufacturer can charge extra for the lead "free" feature the bans are about making hunting and shooting as expensive and impractical as possible ..................PAY ATTENTION YOU ARE BEING PLAYED FOR A FOOL ! *&^%$#@@#$%^& i I am trying to be polite here ok or are you trolling?

[hawk84]

Sorry Hawk this is about power and control not science, the antis do not give a rats about condors etc......leadless lines are a specialty item developed because the manufacturer can charge extra for the lead "free" feature the bans are about making hunting and shooting as expensive and impractical as possible ..................PAY ATTENTION YOU ARE BEING PLAYED FOR A FOOL ! *&^%$#@@#$%^& i I am trying to be polite here ok or are you trolling?

no I am not trolling, I am a gun loving enviromentalist

the facts just don't add up- how many rounds do you need to go hunt dove/deer, its just doesn't compare to the amount of rounds you go thru at a range(which can be and is cleaned from time to time) paying an extra.

Banning lead on a firing range would be about making shooting impractical, banning people from spreading lead throught the range of endangered animals that are scientifically proven to be suffering from our pollution is about protecting the enviroment, just like it was with unleaded gasoline, leaded paint, DDT, CFC's the list goes on and and it has everything to do with a healthy enviroment, and nothing to do with a gun


the fact that a bunch of *gun toting rednecks* fight everything remotely related to guns serves only to give us all a bad name as people that don't give a S**T about anything other then us, and that is not the message that we need to send

[chris]

if people would actually read what other write you wouldn't jump to such a ridiculous conclusion as me "support"ing a lead ammo ban




you are oblivious to what i actually wrote a half screen up, "god help us" when the people that are fighting for gun rights can't even read a simple paragraph and understand it

i read the article and yes it seems that many of you have bought into this. it is camels nose in the tent. can you see it? probably not since it seems that you have bought this hook line and sinker. this ban on lead ammo will not and I repeat will not stop at hunting bet on it.

[ohsmily]

I like green bullets.
http://www.pmp.co.za/_borders/556ss109.jpg

[CCWFacts]

no I am not trolling, I am a gun loving enviromentalist

Me too. And when I think about how many pounds of lead a shotgun can dump into the environment, and how toxic lead is, it just makes sense that we should be looking for alternatives. Already many waterfowl hunters are using steel shot, which is environmentally benign. There's no law of physics that says that lead is the best or cheapest or best+cheapest thing there is.

the fact that a bunch of *gun toting rednecks* fight everything remotely related to guns serves only to give us all a bad name as people that don't give a S**T about anything other then us, and that is not the message that we need to send

Yeah.

[chris]

Me too. And when I think about how many pounds of lead a shotgun can dump into the environment, and how toxic lead is, it just makes sense that we should be looking for alternatives. Already many waterfowl hunters are using steel shot, which is environmentally benign. There's no law of physics that says that lead is the best or cheapest or best+cheapest thing there is.



Yeah.

uhhh. we are only allowed to use steel shot or other non-toxic shot for waterfowl.

[tyrist]

Is inconclusive the euphemism for results we don't like and intend to ignore?

Ryan

They could have just stated that meat shot with lead ammo did show an increase in lead levels.

[KWA-S]

Think of it this way. SUVs are more harmful to the environment than, say, Priuses (spelling?). Does this mean we should ban SUVs? Then the argument would be that sports or muscle cars are more harmful to the environment than Priuses and so on until all we have are bicycles.

[Zeede]

Just because lead shot from a shotgun is small enough for a bird to eat doesn't mean that it does. God didn't bless birds with a whole lot of higher brain functions, but they are plenty smart in the "what is good for me to eat?" department.

Just toss some seeds with some lead shot and watch. The birds aren't retarded enough to eat all the lead shot along with the seeds.

Cameron

[hawk84]

Just because lead shot from a shotgun is small enough for a bird to eat doesn't mean that it does. God didn't bless birds with a whole lot of higher brain functions, but they are plenty smart in the "what is good for me to eat?" department.

Just toss some seeds with some lead shot and watch. The birds aren't retarded enough to eat all the lead shot along with the seeds.

Cameron
before making public your ignorance of bird digestion, I would suggest doing just a little bit of research


do a simple google search for "bird digestion" and you will find this page
http://www.backyardnature.net/birdguts.htm
there I saved you 10 seconds of research
Something other than muscle power is needed. This "something else" is acquired when grain- eating birds pick up grit and small rocks as they peck seeds from the ground.

when you spread little bits of lead all over the ground what do you think gets picked up along with grit and small rocks?

[hawk84]

uhhh. we are only allowed to use steel shot or other non-toxic shot for waterfowl.
and based on what I've seen, you probably complained about that law too, correct me if im wrong?

[vladbutsky]

There's no law of physics that says that lead is the best or cheapest or best+cheapest thing there is.
Lead is about 1.5 times denser than steel so you can pack more mass into smaller size. Plus it is soft so it is a lot easier to make bullet expand on impact. It is not a coinsidence led was used for bullets almost since guns were invented...

Saying that there is no denying led is not good for you health. But risk is really minimal for these who eat meat with some led from bullets and virtually unexsistant to everyone else. Please keep in mind that led is naturally occouring element and all of it was mined from the earth in the first place.

I would agree that hunting with copper bullets is a smarter choise, but I would fight anyone who would like to make it the only option.

[luchador768]

I would refer Hawk and CCW to a very recent "lead ban" of childrens off highway vehicles. Motorcycles and quads aimed at children under 12 have been pulled from ALL dealers floors. This was done under the guise of saving chlidren from that Devil lead. Aparently this is because there is a small amount of lead in the battery teminals of some bikes and quads. However If you keep chlidren from getting into off roading you could potentially keep them from ever getting into the sport. Hawk I am sure that in your 25 years of life you have picked up all kinds of learning, however one thing you need to aquire in a hurry is a complete and total distrust of our so called government. A lead ban is just one step in a long march to disarm America.

[aplinker]

Let's slow down a bit and really think about things.

I'll start by offering one perspective from another hobby of mine: fishing. It's been suggested that the whole point of lead bans is to prevent people from shooting. The same could be said about lead bans in fishing. This step of logic makes no sense, as DF&G actually actively pursues and encourages people to hunt and fish. They are equally concerned with the sustainability of fish and game (as we should be, as well).

The idea that we've been dumping/shooting lead into the environment "for 500 years and I'm just fine" is stupid. The population in California, not to mention the number of lead projectiles deposited (and the fact that it's cumulative)... it stands to reason that "past performance is not indicative of future results."

To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on lead hunting bans. The issue is a bit different in hunting and fishing environments and I supported a lead ban there, but how it affects the environment in water has been shown to be clearly connected.

I don't mind paying big $ for a few boxes of hunting ammunition, but I wouldn't want to pay it for training ammo.


There's no law of physics that says that lead is the best or cheapest or best+cheapest thing there is.


Of course not, since the laws of physics don't involve economics.

There are better materials, but none of them are cheaper. This is no coincidence since, if there were cheaper, all bullets would be made out of them.

Cheap and high density materials are, in fact, two mutually exclusive terms.

[glockwise2000]

How much are the so-called green bullets? With this economy, no one can even afford to buy those.

With all the people being stressed because of the current situation. People are more likely to shoot more often and more rounds.

Can Obama's stimulus plan subsidize the cost for the green bullets? It would probably just cost around half a billion bucks compared to what AIG had gotten.:eek:

[chris]

and based on what I've seen, you probably complained about that law too, correct me if im wrong?

yes i have. did you contact your reps and governor during the time AB821 was being deliberated. i would have to say no. and you seem to agree with what the anti gunners plan. am i wrong or are you that ignorant of this states' intentions? just for you information in case you missed you happen to live in a state that has one of the most if not the worst gun rights in the nation. bet me on it.

i say this because you seem completely blind to the fact that this law will be abused and expanded with little concern for shooting sports and the financial impact it will have on lower income individuals here. but your only concern is supporting a ban that will have farther reaching implications than you relize. it will happen.

and AB821 was signed as politcal payback for Sam Parades of GOC screwing around with the DFG heads or something close to that.Bwiese can answer that one better than anyone. ask him.

[ravenbkp]

Hawk and Co. do you really believe for one instant that bans and closures for established shooting ranges are not part of this????

I have seen it proposed repeatedly in articles posted and linked here for several years....again this is about fear power and control not about the science......the work was not done for the condor ban thing dig in and see how weak it is. not to worry its all over but the shouting now anyway.

[hawk84]

yes i have. did you contact your reps and governor during the time AB821 was being deliberated. i would have to say no. and you seem to agree with what the anti gunners plan. am i wrong or are you that ignorant of this states' intentions? just for you information in case you missed you happen to live in a state that has one of the most if not the worst gun rights in the nation. bet me on it.

i say this because you seem completely blind to the fact that this law will be abused and expanded with little concern for shooting sports and the financial impact it will have on lower income individuals here. but your only concern is supporting a ban that will have farther reaching implications than you relize. it will happen.

and AB821 was signed as politcal payback for Sam Parades of GOC screwing around with the DFG heads or something close to that.Bwiese can answer that one better than anyone. ask him.
AB821 I do not at all oppose

don't give me any BS about financial impacts, people are still free to shoot thousands of rounds of lead ammo at shooting ranges(and should be) all throughout the state, the condors range is quite limited. if you are going to go hunt deer/turkey whatever, I don't think an extra buck for a bullet is something to cry over, you'll spend 100 bucks in gas just to get there, you spent probably at least a 1000 on your rifle, how much for a hunting licence, how much on ammo practiving

spending 1 dollar for a 30-06 rnd vs 2 dollars for a 30-06 round doesn't matter since hunting ammunition is not consumed in quantity the way lead ammo is, were talking a difference of orders of magnitude, for a 300 lb buck, that amounts to an extra .3 cents a lb for the meat, when using a 2dollar bullet instead of a 1 dollar......oh no the sky is falling:eek:

[hawk84]

Let's slow down a bit and really think about things.

I'll start by offering one perspective from another hobby of mine: fishing. It's been suggested that the whole point of lead bans is to prevent people from shooting. The same could be said about lead bans in fishing. This step of logic makes no sense, as DF&G actually actively pursues and encourages people to hunt and fish. They are equally concerned with the sustainability of fish and game (as we should be, as well).

The idea that we've been dumping/shooting lead into the environment "for 500 years and I'm just fine" is stupid. The population in California, not to mention the number of lead projectiles deposited (and the fact that it's cumulative)... it stands to reason that "past performance is not indicative of future results."

To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on lead hunting bans. The issue is a bit different in hunting and fishing environments and I supported a lead ban there, but how it affects the environment in water has been shown to be clearly connected.

I don't mind paying big $ for a few boxes of hunting ammunition, but I wouldn't want to pay it for training ammo.




Of course not, since the laws of physics don't involve economics.

There are better materials, but none of them are cheaper. This is no coincidence since, if there were cheaper, all bullets would be made out of them.

Cheap and high density materials are, in fact, two mutually exclusive terms.
thankyou, at least it seems some people still think
the argument being made is akin to saying that the ban on DDT was a backdoor attempt to stop farming, or getting rid of leaded gasoline was a backdoor attempt to stop people driving, the ban on lead in paints was an attempt to get people to stop painting, the list goes on and on

grasping at straws and making all gun owners look like idiots

[fd15k]

Lead azide in primers ? Isn't it what's used for blasting caps, and thus being a bit too powerful for the ammo primers ?

No, it's legitimately inconclusive - because that's no proof that the lead in the meat actually lead to higher lead levels.

It could be from reloading using melting lead fumes, for example.

Also, it appears lead ingestion for shooters is the lead vapor from *primers*, not bullet. Primers use compounds like lead azide - Pb(N3)2 - as their explosive component. This is why older indoor police ranges with not-the-best ventilation require 'lead-free' primers. The bullets still have lead in 'em.

[yellowfin]

Lead azide in primers ? Isn't it what's used for blasting caps, and thus being a bit too powerful for the ammo primers ?
A primer's charge is teeny tiny. A blasting cap must be at least 5 times the size.

[Decoligny]

Lead is toxic. We should minimize the amount of it we expose ourselves to and the amount that we dump into the environment.

Just where the hell do you think lead comes from?

Is it a man made compound that is only able to be created by combining harmless compounds toghether to create a toxic metal?

NO.

Lead comes from the environment. Shooting lead ammo is just redistributing the lead back into the environment.

Lead, in the form of a bullet is almost impossible to get into the human bloodstream (unless fired at the bloodstream of the human in question).

It is when we put lead into things like paint, or cosmetics, that it is taken into the human system.

So, we have outlawed lead paint. We have outlawed lead in cosmetics. We have outlawed lead in every form that can possibly enter the human system.

Lead bullets don't pose any environmental threat anymore than my pissing on a tree in the woods contaminates the maple syrup supply.

[Bruce]

Decoligny, you shouldn't argue with these youngsters. After all they're products of the public education/indoctrination system and know more than any one else. ;) :rolleyes:

[chris]

AB821 I do not at all oppose

don't give me any BS (wow how you have shown your intelligence and resorted to this cussing.i may have hit a bone :) )about financial impacts, people are still free to shoot thousands of rounds of lead ammo at shooting ranges(and should be) all throughout the state(don't worry that is next), the condors range is quite limited. if you are going to go hunt deer/turkey whatever, I don't think an extra buck for a bullet is something to cry over, you'll spend 100 bucks in gas just to get there, you spent probably at least a 1000 on your rifle, how much for a hunting licence, how much on ammo practiving
and judging by your statement here you have no idea about hunting at all. research it before you accuse people of their financial posistions. as i have inlcuded all people of this state at all income levels. you have not. hunting is not for the rich it is for all;and your thinking is what the anti-gunners and anti-hunting crowd want.

spending 1 dollar for a 30-06 rnd vs 2 dollars for a 30-06 round doesn't matter since hunting ammunition is not consumed in quantity the way lead ammo is, were talking a difference of orders of magnitude, for a 300 lb buck, that amounts to an extra .3 cents a lb for the meat, when using a 2dollar bullet instead of a 1 dollar......oh no the sky is falling:eek:

thats exactly what i figured from you. but you'll see bury your head in the sand. you must be young and ignorant of California politics. and yes i have to use Barnes bullets not by choice but by law. oh and if you care to look here there was a thread on the DFG expanding the ban statewide. and if you think it won't impact target shooting think again. in time it will. you have fallen for the divide and conquer tatic. i will not debate this issue with you any longe since you have allready given up the fight for our rights.

guns are harder to ban that ammo. you'll see. and no this is no :TFH: stuff.

ignorance is bliss on your part.

hawk and just to educate you on the DFG's plan read this thread.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=151622&highlight=DFG+expanding+lead+ammo+ban

[chris]

Decoligny, you shouldn't argue with these youngsters. After all they're products of the public education/indoctrination system and know more than any one else. ;) :rolleyes:

yeah dude that is what i have been doing and they have caved into the chasim of ignorant bliss. they will learn the hard way. when they side with the anti gunners to save their activity and when they cannot pursue theirs no one will speak for them as no one will be left to speak. oh well no one listens.

[Bruce]

AB821 I do not at all oppose

don't give me any BS about financial impacts, people are still free to shoot thousands of rounds of lead ammo at shooting ranges(and should be)(Until they are closed for fear of lead contaminating the ground water.) all throughout the state, the condors range is quite limited. if you are going to go hunt deer/turkey whatever, I don't think an extra buck for a bullet is something to cry over, you'll spend 100 bucks in gas just to get there, you spent probably at least a 1000 on your rifle, how much for a hunting licence, how much on ammo practiving

spending 1 dollar for a 30-06 rnd vs 2 dollars for a 30-06 round doesn't matter since hunting ammunition is not consumed in quantity the way lead ammo is, were talking a difference of orders of magnitude, for a 300 lb buck, that amounts to an extra .3 cents a lb for the meat, when using a 2dollar bullet instead of a 1 dollar......oh no the sky is falling:eek:

IN CALIFORNIA!?!?!? :eek: WTF are you smoking?:confused:

[RELOAD243]

Is inconclusive the euphemism for results we don't like and intend to ignore?

Ryan

Also ask a doctor about taking in copper instead of lead, it's not good for you either...

[hawk84]

Just where the hell do you think lead comes from?

Is it a man made compound that is only able to be created by combining harmless compounds toghether to create a toxic metal?

NO.

Lead comes from the environment. Shooting lead ammo is just redistributing the lead back into the environment.

Lead, in the form of a bullet is almost impossible to get into the human bloodstream (unless fired at the bloodstream of the human in question).

It is when we put lead into things like paint, or cosmetics, that it is taken into the human system.

So, we have outlawed lead paint. We have outlawed lead in cosmetics. We have outlawed lead in every form that can possibly enter the human system.

Lead bullets don't pose any environmental threat anymore than my pissing on a tree in the woods contaminates the maple syrup supply.

show me one natural source of pure lead at ground level

you can't, they don't exist, lead is mined from ore, just like basically all metals,

this isn't about lead entering only the human blood stream, its about lead entering the enviroment/food chain, and claiming that it can't enter the human blood stream from a bullet fired at game is nothing short of laughable

[hawk84]

Also ask a doctor about taking in copper instead of lead, it's not good for you either...

but its not as bad as lead, when is the last time you saw a lead coin? a copper coin? theres your answer, one is far safer to come into contact with, the arguments being presented could be shot down by a 3rd grader

[Zeede]

The condor zone is huge. Check out the map at the Department of Fish and Game's website:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor/docs/Ridley-TreeCondorPreservationAct.pdf

That's a honking huge area.

Cameron

[chris]

The condor zone is huge. Check out the map at the Department of Fish and Game's website:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor/docs/Ridley-TreeCondorPreservationAct.pdf

That's a honking huge area.

Cameron

according to some here it's not that big. and if the DFG has their way it will include the entire state.

[yellowfin]

To those who believe in this ridiculous lead ammo fallacy: why hasn't this been an issue anywhere else in the US over the last 50-100 years when there were many, MANY more hunters and shooters back then and where there are states with a lot more hunters than in CA now?

Got an answer? Didn't think so.

[Decoligny]

show me one natural source of pure lead at ground level

you can't, they don't exist, lead is mined from ore, just like basically all metals,

this isn't about lead entering only the human blood stream, its about lead entering the enviroment/food chain, and claiming that it can't enter the human blood stream from a bullet fired at game is nothing short of laughable

Lead is most commonly found as Galena. It is 86.6% lead and 13.4% sulpher. It is also found on occasion in its pure form.

As far as it entering the environment. There are lead bullets from the revolutionary war being found still intact to this day. They don't oxidize away to "lead dust" and seep into the food chain.

And I don't know of anyone who shoots an animal for food and the eats the damaged shredded meat from the bullet path, where any errant lead particles of the size to be swallowed would be located.

[chris]

To those who believe in this ridiculous lead ammo fallacy: why hasn't this been an issue anywhere else in the US over the last 50-100 years when there were many, MANY more hunters and shooters back then and where there are states with a lot more hunters than in CA now?

Got an answer? Didn't think so.

the person that would answer you will more than likely be silent as he has been shown that we will not give in to this lead ammo ban garbage.

[Cypren]

To those who believe in this ridiculous lead ammo fallacy: why hasn't this been an issue anywhere else in the US over the last 50-100 years when there were many, MANY more hunters and shooters back then and where there are states with a lot more hunters than in CA now?

Arguably, it has been an issue -- just as pollution in rivers and the air has been an issue and has led to higher mortality rates through cancer and other diseases throughout history, though those effects were not understood properly at the time. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I'm not making an argument for or against a lead ammo ban; I don't think we have sufficient data to cite any empirical evidence one way or the other due to lack of accurate scientific study. But making the argument of "why hasn't this been an issue before now?" isn't very persuasive, especially to people who actually need to be persuaded on this issue: environmentalists. (I leave out anti-gunners who are just using environmentalism as a cover; you can't persuade them no matter what you do.)

[dixieD]

AB821 don't give me any BS about financial impacts, people are still free to shoot thousands of rounds of lead ammo at shooting ranges(and should be) all throughout the state, the condors range is quite limited. if you are going to go hunt deer/turkey whatever, I don't think an extra buck for a bullet is something to cry over, you'll spend 100 bucks in gas just to get there, you spent probably at least a 1000 on your rifle, how much for a hunting licence, how much on ammo practiving

It is incremental just like every other attack. A statewide lead ban for hunting will of course be in the news, and communities located near shooting ranges are going to start worrying about lead exposure from these facilities. They are already complaining about the noise. Despite arguments that these sites can be cleaned up etc. there will either be referendums to ban lead everywhere (except for the police of course), or there will be a rash of lawsuits that effectively destroy industry. It is a slippery slope which leads only to a total ban of lead projectiles.

[luchador768]

It is incremental just like every other attack. A statewide lead ban for hunting will of course be in the news, and communities located near shooting ranges are going to start worrying about lead exposure from these facilities. They are already complaining about the noise. Despite arguments that these sites can be cleaned up etc. there will either be referendums to ban lead everywhere (except for the police of course), or there will be a rash of lawsuits that effectively destroy industry. It is a slippery slope which leads only to a total ban of lead projectiles.

+1,000

[RRangel]

no I am not trolling, I am a gun loving enviromentalist

the facts just don't add up- how many rounds do you need to go hunt dove/deer, its just doesn't compare to the amount of rounds you go thru at a range(which can be and is cleaned from time to time) paying an extra.

Banning lead on a firing range would be about making shooting impractical, banning people from spreading lead throught the range of endangered animals that are scientifically proven to be suffering from our pollution is about protecting the enviroment, just like it was with unleaded gasoline, leaded paint, DDT, CFC's the list goes on and and it has everything to do with a healthy enviroment, and nothing to do with a gun


the fact that a bunch of *gun toting rednecks* fight everything remotely related to guns serves only to give us all a bad name as people that don't give a S**T about anything other then us, and that is not the message that we need to send

Not everyone is a follower that believes every earth muffin that wants to save the planet, and for good reason. The environment was here before us, and it will be here after we're all gone. It isn't going anywhere. The condor lead ban is pretty weak. The condor range encompasses more than California and states like Arizona aren't jumping through hoops to pass such garbage laws for a reason.

The loss or change of habitat probably has a bigger impact on the condor than anything. It appears that the condor is having a hard time adapting, and because of that "environmentalists" want to freeze hunting. I witness buzzards thriving in areas of California daily. Why aren't they dying of lead poisoning? I'm certainly not for propping up a species that cannot be propped up. To what lengths will animal saviors go to protect this bird? That's a scary thought. Thousands if not millions of species have gone extinct on this earth throughout time, and it's nothing new.

The data I've seen regarding condor deaths does not even tell the whole picture. There is less hunters in California than ever, but just now we need a lead ammunition ban? Power lines kill a sizable number condors comparable to any lead not to mention that copper is toxic. I suppose that's next. It's knee jerk implemention of ideas like this that have lead to the poor state of affairs in California.

[M. Sage]

The fact that they had higher levels means some lead is getting through. They probably just don't consume a huge amount of hunted meat so the amount that comes through isn't that significant.

But there's no such thing as a "harmless" level of lead. Less is always better. I don't know why someone would choose to expose himself or his family to lead unnecessarily. And with all the non-lead bullet options out there right now, there's no reason to continue using lead for hunting.

The NRA, and the shooting community, should get behind the lead-free movement. Lead is toxic. We should minimize the amount of it we expose ourselves to and the amount that we dump into the environment.

Are you kidding me? There is such a thing as a harmless level of lead.

No, we should not get behind the lead-free movement.

Why hasn't someone developed a polymer bullet yet?

Too light, next to impossible to control expansion (if you can get it to expand, and I'd be shocked if you could get anything reliable). No thanks. I'll be sticking with copper-covered lead for a long time to come.

The harmless level of lead is zero, especially for fetuses and babies. Vitamin C is safe within a wide range of intakes. There's a non-zero level of radiation exposure that is optimal. But for lead, mercury, asbestos and some things like that, the optimal level is none.

The Romans already knew this:

There is such a thing as a safe level of exposure to each of those. There is actually such a thing as a normal amount to some of them.

Stop spreading FUD and get some education, please.

that being said, lead is obviously not the most friendly element for the environment I think the real problem comes from shotgun shells. The thousands of birdshot bb's get eaten by birds etc and that is where the real environmental problem lies. go out and shoot off 200 1 1/8 oz birdshot shells and you just spread 14 lbs of lead that is almost impossible to recover, lead in small enough pieces that birds ingest it and it is now in the food chain

Funny, I've shot on ranges where the ground crunches beneath my feet because it's almost all little chunks of lead. The animals and plants were healthy. No problems.

all metals are toxic, lead is just more toxic, its not a scare tactic at all, but simple fact, this is really one of the most absurd things I've heard on here, there is a reason we went to *unleaded* gasoline, *unleaded* paint, etc, and it has absolutely nothing to do with some anti's aversion to firearms, it has to do with the *FACT* that lead is a highly toxic metal that shouldn't be injested/inhaled

As long as we're talking facts, how about the fact that nobody has suffered from lead poisoning because of ammunition. I'd love to see any info to the contrary.

There are a lot of people walking around with bullets in them because it was less dangerous to leave the bullet in than take it out.

if people would actually read what other write you wouldn't jump to such a ridiculous conclusion as me "support"ing a lead ammo ban

you are oblivious to what i actually wrote a half screen up, "god help us" when the people that are fighting for gun rights can't even read a simple paragraph and understand it

You are giving support to a lead ammo ban. These laws have gone over the top. They're no longer protecting the environment (in fact, they're damaging it in some cases - like CA's "protection" of mountain lions), but about control.

the fact that a bunch of *gun toting rednecks* fight everything remotely related to guns serves only to give us all a bad name as people that don't give a S**T about anything other then us, and that is not the message that we need to send

Stay civil or go elsewhere.

They could have just stated that meat shot with lead ammo did show an increase in lead levels.

No, they couldn't. There was a correlation, but there was no causation shown. People who ate meat taken with lead ammo showed slightly elevated levels of lead and that's all.

AB821 I do not at all oppose

don't give me any BS about financial impacts, people are still free to shoot thousands of rounds of lead ammo at shooting ranges(and should be) all throughout the state, the condors range is quite limited. if you are going to go hunt deer/turkey whatever, I don't think an extra buck for a bullet is something to cry over, you'll spend 100 bucks in gas just to get there, you spent probably at least a 1000 on your rifle, how much for a hunting licence, how much on ammo practiving

You have to practice and sight in with the ammo you're going to hunt with.

And we'd be free to use lead ammo at hunting ranges... for now...

As for bird digestion, the turkeys at the range I mentioned in a previous post are doing great.

But what do I know? I'm just a gun-toting (more so in TX!!!!) redneck. :thumbsup:

Just where the hell do you think lead comes from?

Come on, let's not confuse this with that logic stuff. Feelings are what we need! ;)

but its not as bad as lead, when is the last time you saw a lead coin? a copper coin? theres your answer, one is far safer to come into contact with, the arguments being presented could be shot down by a 3rd grader

Lead makes crappy coins. It's too malleable. It's also not worth as much - not that it matters much now, but we're traditionalists like that. It's got to at least look like it's valuable.

[jb7706]

There's a non-zero level of radiation exposure that is optimal. But for lead, mercury, asbestos and some things like that, the optimal level is none.


I think your broad based statements are not founded in fact. I'll take your radiation exposure statement as one example. Radioactivity is everywhere in our lives. We are exposed by the concrete at our feet, it's in food, sporting goods, smoke detectors, the air, and we even get some straight from space. From Nuclear War Survival Skills, pp13 by Cresson H. Kearny:

...the human body can repair most radiation damage if the daily radiation dosages are not too large...a person who is healthy and has not been exposed in the past 2 weeks to a total radiation dose of more than 100 R can receive a dose of 6 R each day for at least two months without being incapacitated.

One would accept that high exposure obviously only if required to work after some sort of nuclear incident, but it demonstrates that there are in fact very acceptable levels of exposure to all kinds of nasty things. There is some thought that being exposed to low radiation levels over time actually increases your body's ability to repair that kind of damage, I'll see if I can cite that when I have time to find it.

Ever been to a hot springs pool? Take a look at the water analysis, many contain arsenic, lead, iron and many other heavy metals. I know as a kid learning to swim in those pools I ingested plenty of that water.

Have you seen the mercury content of some seafood? Do you have dental work? Mercury. Have you ever received a vaccination? You guessed it. Mercury compounds are/were there too.

Did you know that oxygen can kill you? That's right, breathing 100% oxygen over time will lead to oxygen toxicity that has a very unpleasant array of things that can make you die a rotten death.

There are all kinds of substances in our environment that are deadly at higher concentrations. They are all around us and there is nothing we can do to to eliminate our exposure.

Lead has been used to take game for centuries. Families survived on meat taken with lead shot and ball, and I feel pretty safe saying that there was very little wasted meat, even that around a wound cavity. While it is not the greatest idea to eat lead tainted meat I guarantee it has been done and with no ill effect to the consumer.

I am not advocating we put lead flakes in our kids bubble gum, but at the same time banning it in ammo is just as silly. Pulling lead from paint and plumbing is quite different, these are items that are in close contact with us every day. Heavy metals do tend to build up over time, so just like not eating the wound channel of game taken with lead it's just smart. Blaming lead pistol/rifle ammo for the demise of anything other than what was shot with it is just overreaction unless there is solid science to support it. So far, nothing has been provided to make an undeniable case for that.

I am much more concerned about the loss of my rights, freedoms and independence than I am that my sons are/will be exposed to lead from hundreds of years of shooting and hunting. Once my rights, freedoms and independence is gone, so it is for my children. What a sad day that will be, for all of us.

[AmericasFirstFreedom]

I disagree: Toxicology 101 . . . "the dose makes the poison." It can be argued that H2O (water) is harmless . . . yet in a high enough dose - like drowning or water intoxication - well, you get the picture.

The assumption that zero levels of something is optimal or safe is false and predicated on the erroneous belief that the body is a static system; it is, in fact, a dynamic system that maintains homeostasis by the body taking in what it needs and excretes or metabolizes levels of anything ingested beyond what it can handle . . . of course, again, up to a point.

When we're talking about "safe levels," agreed; if optimal means "ideal" . . . hardly realistic and not based on science.

[otteray]

The enviro-wackos pick and choose their poisons of choice.

For instance; there is a deafening silence regarding the new "green" light bulbs that contain mercury.
They can trust the whole friggin' population to recycle in order to save the environment, yet there is a fair amount of bulbs and fluorescent lights that are still illegally being tossed (along with all sorts of harmful trash, needle sharpies, paints and chemicals) into the riparian corridors, canyons and fields. I removed close to 100 addict's needles from one dump site alone.
I monitor and remove the many tons of illegal dumps here in Santa Cruz County and I can tell you that the quantity of "bad-for-the-birds-and-children" crap illegally dumped on a daily basis is appalling.
Yet they can't trust a much smaller group (hunters) to remove their gut piles.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

No, they couldn't. There was a correlation, but there was no causation shown. People who ate meat taken with lead ammo showed slightly elevated levels of lead and that's all.


In support of this, I'll point out that in the study cited at the start of this, only HALF of the people eating game showed elevated levels of lead. If ALL animals were shot, why only half? Could it be that something else is in play? Like maybe poor people (the ones who get food from food banks) live in older homes. Homes that may still have lead pain, because poor people don't have the money to strip & repaint? Maybe?

The Raisuli

[.454]

show me one natural source of pure lead at ground level

you can't, they don't exist, lead is mined from ore, just like basically all metals,

this isn't about lead entering only the human blood stream, its about lead entering the enviroment/food chain, and claiming that it can't enter the human blood stream from a bullet fired at game is nothing short of laughable

Carbon dioxide is damaging the environment too. So I have a message for you: stop breathing.

[chris]

anyone notice that hawk84 has not returned to defend his position.

[CCWFacts]

I think your broad based statements are not founded in fact. I'll take your radiation exposure statement as one example. Radioactivity is everywhere in our lives. We are exposed by the concrete at our feet, it's in food, sporting goods, smoke detectors, the air, and we even get some straight from space.

Um, you didn't even understand what I said at all, and you're saying my statements are not based in fact? I said, "There's a non-zero level of radiation exposure that is optimal." That logically implies that zero radiation exposure is not optimal. I could also rephrase that as, some exposure to radiation is beneficial. Some small level of radiation is better than no radiation.

It's no accident that various traditional therapeutic mud baths and mineral baths have fairly high levels of natural radiation. Radiation stimulates cellular repair mechanisms, which is a good thing. Of course, when it gets above a certain level it starts doing too much damage to chromosomes and then it's a bad thing. All this means that there is some non-zero optimal level of radiation. If you had two sets of animals, one raised in a zero-radiation environment (I realize that is difficult or impossible) and another set raised with some background radiation, the ones with some background radiation would be healthier. The healthiest level of radiation exposure is some level of background radiation.

But heavy metals like lead and mercury are not like that. The optimal level of exposure for those is zero. If you could raise one set of animals in a lead-free environment, another with low levels of lead exposure, and another with higher levels, you would see the health gets progressively worse with higher levels. The healthiest level of lead exposure is none at all.

But you didn't even read or understand what I wrote.

Anyway....

Carbon dioxide is damaging the environment too. So I have a message for you: stop breathing.

You realize that neither plant nor animal life could exist without CO2? I don't remember the details but I think CO2 is used to regulate O2 levels in the blood and without CO2 in the air we would die quickly. Likewise, plants would die within a few days without CO2 because they wouldn't be able to photosynthesize. Of course, right now there is concern that there's too much CO2 being released into the atmosphere, but the science on it is still a subject of debate.

[otteray]

Lead bans are only only the first step of many more.
We have the honor of being the only species in the v-e-r-r-ry long history of the planet that realizes that all plants, birds and raptors, long toed salamanders, red legged frog, trout, sticky tar plant and Olone beetle are more important than the lowly selfish humans and that we must kill ourselves off to save them.

It is the only way. We have tried co-existing and it just isn't working well enough at all for the eco-warriors and the self proclaimed expert consensus of science media gurus.

Some scientific studies now say that vegetables suffer when steamed and eaten. Can't have that now, can we?
Ultimately, we must all die to save the frog and the trout's children.
The optimal level of exposure to humans would then be zero.

What a bunch of malarkey.

[jb7706]

Um, you didn't even understand what I said at all, and you're saying my statements are not based in fact?

You are correct, I did misread your original post. I read it to say that zero radiation is best, clearly that is not what you wrote.


But heavy metals like lead and mercury are not like that. The optimal level of exposure for those is zero. If you could raise one set of animals in a lead-free environment, another with low levels of lead exposure, and another with higher levels, you would see the health gets progressively worse with higher levels. The healthiest level of lead exposure is none at all.


I believe that there is plenty of science available to demonstrate that exposure to lead, mercury and other heavy metals below a certain threshold is acceptable and will cause no harm to most subjects in a population. If that is the case then how can it be stated that only zero is best? If all animals in the low exposure group were kept below the threshold of harm then there would be no ill effects. There is a range greater than zero and x where a substance is harmless.

I suppose if we were comparing it to say...getting burned it would make sense. One would prefer to not be burned, but most would agree that getting burned to a point is totally acceptable and no long term harm will come in most cases.

I think I am arguing against a poorly chosen point of contention, the word optimal. Would I prefer zero exposure to lead as it has no known benefit to my health? Yes. Am I willing to be exposed to a small amount? Yes, or I would not be a shooter, hunter, car driver, present in older homes etc. I also do not believe that zero is the absolute healthiest level of exposure. I am confident that if every shooter gave up his sport and went to a magic zero lead environment, all other things the same, the vast majority would be no better off for it. So optimal may be zero, it's just totally unrealistic. Exposure to lead and other substances is acceptable in limited quantities, we agree here I think. The exact threshold of acceptable is up for debate and will vary by person.

Basing our laws on totally unrealistic expectations has gotten us gun bans, criminal safety zones ("gun free zones") and the like. We seem to think that we can legislate Utopia, I see lead ammo bans as just another misguided nanny law that infringe on our rights with no real benefit but for those that crave power.

[chris]

i have a point to make for CCWfacts:

you have in your sig line. that you can get a CCW in California. and yet you seem to support a lead ammo ban that only affects hunters.

how can anyone support you in spreading the facts about getting a CCW in this state. and yet you support the divide and conquer mentality of politicians here.

first off you of all people should know better that chipping away at our rights is the first step in taking away our rights. and the lead ammo ban is directed at a small group of people hunters. we are not that many we are a small group compared to the shooting community at large. and yet supporting the lead ammo ban will not help your cause.

this was done to so called "AW's" here. they were targeted specificly and are banned. progress has been made in this area and we must move forward on it.what makes you think that this lead ammo ban will not affect target shooting. again knowing full well the intentions of legislators we have here.this is BS on your part. we need to work together or it will all be gone. PERIOD!!!! bet on it! it's a bet i dont intend on losing.

it will spread to target shooting not this year maybe next. who knows with the way our legislators think it's anyones guess.

sure lead is bad for you and no one is advocating eating the stuff that is just plain stupid. but we are exposed to many chemicals and harmfull polutants on a daily basis and advocating a ban that will only affect a small group will not help.

also have you checked into how much the "lead free" ammo costs? it's not cheap. this ban alone is the way to discourage low income or people on a fixed budget to shoot and hunt in this state. again another tatic that politicians favor.

[Swiss]

Perhaps not 100% on topic but certainly related: can anyone point me to an objective resource on lead at outdoor ranges? What's the real science on lead on or near the surface, effects on ground water, etc.? Are there special design requirements for rifle ranges so that lead may be easily collected?

[RRangel]

Perhaps not 100% on topic but certainly related: can anyone point me to an objective resource on lead at outdoor ranges? What's the real science on lead on or near the surface, effects on ground water, etc.? Are there special design requirements for rifle ranges so that lead may be easily collected?

There has been CDC and other studies, but you do not hear the bullet banners and their Humane Society friends talking about them.

http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/LeadIssues.aspx

Q: When did health concerns over lead in venison surface?

A: Health concerns over lead in venison were virtually nonexistent until March 2008 when Dr. William Cornatzer, a Bismarck dermatologist and board member of the Peregrine Fund, informed the North Dakota Department of Health that he’d tested 95 one-pound samples of ground venison donated through state food pantries and found lead fragments in 53 of them.

At Cornatzer’s announcement, North Dakota and Minnesota actually disposed of thousands of pounds of venison destined for needy families. Iowa delayed distribution until it could do its own testing, then resumed distribution.

Cornatzer was on the board of directors for the Peregrine Fund, a group that had supported the ban on lead ammunition in California’s condor range. Cornatzer’s announcement was timed just weeks before the Peregrine Fund was set to hold a conference in May, entitled, “Ingestion of Spent Lead Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans.” Many felt the timing of his announcement was a deliberate attempt to draw attention to the conference.

Q: Do people become ill from eating venison taken with lead ammunition?

A: Hunters have eaten venison taken with lead bullets for hundreds of years. Yet there is not one documented case of lead poisoning from eating deer meat. Doctors are required to report all cases of lead poisoning to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), yet according to CDC public health advisor Kimball Credle, no cases have ever been traced to wild game meat.

Q: What studies have been conducted on lead levels in humans caused by eating venison?

A: At the request of the North Dakota Department of Health, the CDC tested blood lead levels in 738 residents of that state. Results were released in November 2008, and not one individual tested had levels considered elevated. According to the CDC, blood levels are considered “elevated” in children when they are above 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood; and in adults 25 micrograms per deciliter. The highest level in the whole CDC test was 9.8 micrograms per deciliter.

The geometric mean of the CDC study of 1.17 micrograms per deciliter was lower than the geometric mean of lead in the overall U.S. population (1.60 micrograms per deciliter). More than 86 percent of the people in the CDC test reported eating more than one type of wild game.

The lead levels of children under 6, those who the Minnesota Department of Health deems ‘the most at risk,’ had a mean of just 0.88 micrograms per deciliter of blood. That’s just one part per billion and less than half the national average.

Q: Has anyone other than the CDC conducted tests on blood lead levels in humans?

A: The Iowa State Department of Health has tested blood-lead levels since 1992, in 500,000 youths and 25,000 adults. They have not found one single case of lead poisoning from wild game.

[Swiss]

There has been CDC and other studies, but you do not hear the bullet banners and their Humane Society friends talking about them.

http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/LeadIssues.aspx

Thanks for interesting link, although I'm really looking for info on outdoor rifle ranges and the lead that accumulates there.

[otteray]

Sea shells bond with lead.
Some ranges use shells in their drainage system.
A chemist may be better able to explain it.

http://www.wfsa.net/adobe_documents/AFEMS%20Range%20handbook.pdf

[RRangel]

Thanks for interesting link, although I'm really looking for info on outdoor rifle ranges and the lead that accumulates there.

I know many will not consider the link objective, but what is important is that you can search for the studies mentioned and do your own checking. I came across similar information earlier that would shed some light on your actual question, but I can't for the life of me remember the source. If I do I will try and post it. I may have read it in print.

[acanales]

The fact that they had higher levels means some lead is getting through. They probably just don't consume a huge amount of hunted meat so the amount that comes through isn't that significant.

But there's no such thing as a "harmless" level of lead. Less is always better. I don't know why someone would choose to expose himself or his family to lead unnecessarily. And with all the non-lead bullet options out there right now, there's no reason to continue using lead for hunting.

The NRA, and the shooting community, should get behind the lead-free movement. Lead is toxic. We should minimize the amount of it we expose ourselves to and the amount that we dump into the environment.


The problem with a "zero tolerance" approach on lead is that homes, biosolids used for home garden fertilization or electrical power cogeneration, and backround amounts of lead depending upon geographic location all will come into play, not just whether someone consumes venison, upland game, or both after shooting with lead ammo.

What the NDC study did report, as to finds, is as follows

"...Specifically, compared with other age categories, participants aged ≥65 years had the highest geometric mean PbB (Table 8). After adjusting for all other confounding effects, participants 2–5 years of age, 6–24 years of age, 25–44 years of age, and 45–65 years of age, respectively, had 0.84μg/dl, 1.10μg/dl, 1.10μg/dl, 0.44μg/dl lower PbB than those ≥65 years of age (Table 8). Males had PbB that were 0.28μg/dl higher than female participants. Participants living in residences built between 1950 and 1977 or before 1950 had higher PbB (0.19μg/dl and 0.43 μg/dl, respectively) compared with participants living in residences built after 1977.
Currently having lead-related hobbies were associated with higher PbB compared with those who did not report lead-related hobbies. Participants who consumed wild game had 0.30 μg/dl higher PbB in comparison with those who did not consume wild game (Table 8). The multivariate model did not improve significantly when all two-way interactions between wild game consumption and other variables were considered in the model (data not shown). Participants who did not consume wild game within a month before data collection had significantly lower PbB for all game types (Table 9). Among those who reported consuming other game, a 0.40 μg/dl increase in PbB was associated with having an average serving size of ≥ 2 oz. compared with those who consumed a lesser amount.

Discussion
In this study, the consumption of wild game was significantly associated with an increase in PbB..." (Page 8).

In other words, they base the claim on increased Pb blood levels that start running afoul of measurement error, or perhaps incidental and unknown exposure that went unreported in the survey method.



The report also notes:

"...While this study suggests that consumption of wild game meat can adversely affect PbB, no participant had PbB higher than the CDC recommended threshold of 10μg/dl—the level at which CDC recommends case management; and the geometric mean PbB among this study population (1.17μg/dl) was lower than the overall population geometric mean PbB in the United States (1.60 μg/dl) (CDC 2005). The clinical significance of low PbB in this sample population and the small quantitative increase of 0.30μg/dl in PbB associated with wild game consumption should be interpreted in the context of naturally occurring PbB. Despite the decline in PbB in recent decades, the mean PbB in the population is several orders of magnitude higher than the levels of preindustrial human societies (0.016 μg/dl) and the natural background of PbB in humans (Flegal and Smith 1992; Bellinger 2004). Among adults, increased risk of myocardial and stroke mortality have been observed to be associated with PbB ≥2μg/dl (Menke et al. 2006)..." (Page 9)

In other words, the survey respondents that ate game shot with lead ammo had a Pb blood lead level 25% lower than the average person in the US, 2005 results.

Also, it would seem that Flegal and Smith in their study, and Bellinger in his study, probably had to go before Roman or possibly even Greek times to find a society "pre-industrial-enough" to not have used lead. Given the shorter lifespans involved in pre-industrial lifetimes, one can only wonder how valid measurements of bone accumulation would be under the circumstances.


For the past 5 years working on the condor/lead bullet issue, it has been interesting to see how science has been massaged and worded to obtain a one-tailed result. If .30 ug/dL were such a threat as suggested by the CDC/ND study, then biosolids used for electrical co-generation or land deposition should be banned yesterday (It turns out that Minnesota burns a certain amount of Class A EQ biosolids, containing lead and other toxic salts, every day as part of a way to generate electricity without using coal, natural gas, or nukes, sort of a "carbon neutral" approach...).

But what is usually not discussed by the "ban lead" advocates is that the alternatives, such as copper, are likely to have an even more serious effect on the environment than the continuation of the use of lead. I cannot stress to the hunting and shooting public enough that they should take a seriously reserved view on the so-called "science" being represented to the public so far on this issue. The California Final Environmental Document on the Methods of Take, related to the condor/lead bullet issue, found no direct link between the lead in ammunition and lead found in the bloodstreams of condors. If the staff scientists at CA's DFG can be that circumspect, given their access to the latest reports and claims, then perhaps the shooting and hunting public should be as well.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales