Lead and opinion

[Buchan]

The toxic effects of lead are regularly debated on here with some people having widely differing views. So I'm genuinely interested in the thought of those who don't consider lead a problem, as this relates to some training I do.

So what do you think is incorrect about the accepted scientific understanding that:

a) lead is poisonous, disrupting many body processes
b) it's a cumulative poison with no known safe minimum
c) the effects are particularly bad in the young
d) that lead particles occur in muscle in animals shot with lead bullets away from the actual wound
e) that people who regularly eat meat from animals shot with lead have higher lead levels in their body
f) that birds are highly sensitive to lead

Note - no comment on the accuracy of lead or the knock down, this is purely lead's biological impact

 

[Moaky]

Im from the US, and we've had the lead debate for quite some time now, with some states outlawing lead altogether in some areas. From what ive read, the studies they've done on us hunters historically and people in high hunted areas showed that there were no higher lead content in the blood of hunters and their families than someone who lives in the middle of a big city with no hunting at all.

The main argument in the US is birds, specifically species that pick up grit for their gizzards. The California condor almost went extinct in large part due to this issue. The way the gizzard grinds the lead is what processes it in a way that becomes harmful to the bird.

not necessarily an argument either way, just some info I found interesting. I think like anything, its beneficial if we can find materials and technologies that progress what we do for the better. Its hard to see though that it might do anything other than widen the gap between people of means and the rest of us who are already at our limits with the cost of everything.

 

[cjm1066]

Probably researching previous posts or Google scholar, this topic has been covered extensively.

 

[palmer_mike]

G) the human gut does not readily absorb lead from ingested lead shot

 

[User00056]

Personally, while I agree that lead is toxic, I’m not convinced that (in the form we ourselves use as shooters) it’s particularly dangerous, even when it comes to lead shot and wetland bird species. There’s no doubt that lead shot in birds gizzards is metabolised and highly toxic in this form, but I’m of a mind that a large majority of lead shot actually ends up far below the level at which most waterfowl can reach it, even dabbling species. There was a study carried out by the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust & RSPB back in 2002 relating to this, and when the findings were (eventually) relayed to the Lead Action Group they demanded the government establish it was revealed that the study was actually conducted over a 4-decade span, that only 2500 birds were post-mortemed, and that only 250 were found to be affected by lead, mainly due to elevated systemic levels. So six birds a year, and it was never actually shown that lead ingestion was the cause of death.

The other omission was that the ‘study’ was carried out over their own reserves, which haven’t actually been shot over for decades. Go figure.

And another howler is that the most common source for lead ingestion is cereals, potatoes, and grain. Which the WWT has been feeding to birds by the tonne for decades. Again, go figure

So, all this talk of ‘thousands’ of birds being poisoned seems to hysterical hyperbole, intended to generate support for their anti-lead agenda, and aimed squarely at those who have neither the inclination, or motive to question that figure.
So, while I have no particular beef at the move towards lead alternatives, I really have an issue with lead being made out to be the villain of the piece because I’m just not convinced that it is.

So as far as the original question is concerned, my only disagreement would be with the statement made in 'e)'. The rest are all technically correct, even if the mechanisms of potential ingestion aren't properly defined.

 

[Apthorpe]

The toxic effects of lead are regularly debated on here with some people having widely differing views. So I'm genuinely interested in the thought of those who don't consider lead a problem, as this relates to some training I do.

So what do you think is incorrect about the accepted scientific understanding that:

a) lead is poisonous, disrupting many body processes
b) it's a cumulative poison with no known safe minimum
c) the effects are particularly bad in the young
d) that lead particles occur in muscle in animals shot with lead bullets away from the actual wound
e) that people who regularly eat meat from animals shot with lead have higher lead levels in their body
f) that birds are highly sensitive to lead

Note - no comment on the accuracy of lead or the knock down, this is purely lead's biological impact

Shouldn't you also be seeking the views of those who have views diverging in both directions? Those who have what we might call excessively alarmist views about lead?

 

[Roebuck9]

n

And another howler is that the most common source for lead ingestion is cereals, potatoes, and grain. Which the WWT has been feeding to birds by the tonne for decades. Again, go figure

If this is correct and I have no doubt it is the only question I ask is where were the fields the crops cereals, potatoes, grain, as if for example the fields were adjacent to a clay ground then I would expect the crops could quite well have a higher lead content due to the lead shot falling on the near crop fields and contaminating the crops cereals potatoes etc.

just a thought.

 

[Apthorpe]

The toxic effects of lead are regularly debated on here with some people having widely differing views. So I'm genuinely interested in the thought of those who don't consider lead a problem, as this relates to some training I do.

So what do you think is incorrect about the accepted scientific understanding that:

a) lead is poisonous, disrupting many body processes

This is not in dispute, except to the extent of your terminological inexactitude. Lead ions and complexes are poisonous, with many harmful effects.

b) it's a cumulative poison with no known safe minimum

"no known safe minimum" is not an equivalent statement to saying that small doses are harmful. A sensible risk assessment is going to compare the verifiable risk of eating lead-shot game (i.e. one or two cases found worldwide, ever, in particularly extreme subsistence hunters of leads poisoning), to the risk of eating other similar foods (fish contaminated with mercury, PCBs etc) and supermarket meats regulated to the highest standards, but frequently found to be entirely different species etc.

c) the effects are particularly bad in the young

Accepted. I've not heard anyone dispute that.

d) that lead particles occur in muscle in animals shot with lead bullets away from the actual wound

Obviously true.

e) that people who regularly eat meat from animals shot with lead have higher lead levels in their body

Not sure that there is sufficient evidence to make this claim. In particular, not aware of evidence of the difference in lead levels in people who regularly eat animals shot with non-lead.

f) that birds are highly sensitive to lead

Not sure that this is supportable, outside those genera which use grit to grind up their food. My sense is that you may have made an extrapolation here, and in any event, it is not clear to me how much more sensitive birds are to lead than e.g. humans in quantitative terms.

What I think you have completely missed is that for most people what you have listed above is not the issue. The issue is whether using lead shot does significant enough harm to ban it. This divides into two issues, firstly, the question of the degree to which animals or humans are actually exposed to toxic lead compounds as a result of lead ammunition and secondly, is the harm done bad enough, in the context of other realities, to justify banning lead ammunition now?

The answer to the first question is quite uncontroversial. For certain American carrion-eating raptors, and wildfowl in wetlands, it is very toxic. Those issues are adequately addressed with long-standing UK legislation. Aside from those groups, there is no evidence of harm being caused on any significant scale at all. Everyone is in agreement on this, scientists have published no data to support a ban (which hasn't stopped them campaigning for one) and shooters have not observed a problem.

Various papers by the usual suspects - as we all know, nearly all the literature on this is produced by a small clique of anti-shooting activists constantly circularly citing each other - estimate that possibly something of the order of a million birds per year are killed by lead poisoning in Europe and a further three million made ill. It should be noted that no significant data has been collected to support this assertion. Cats in this country alone kill well over twenty times as many wild birds. Given that absolutely no constraints whatsoever are proposed by these pseudo-scientists to limit this entirely avoidable harm, it is impossible to make a logical or scientific case in favour of banning lead shot.

Note - no comment on the accuracy of lead or the knock down, this is purely lead's biological impact

Your questionnaire seems to me to be somewhat missing the target. Aside, from the bias pointed out above, it seems to me that nobody thinks lead is not toxic. Now, if you're framing your study of this around the presumption that people with other opinions dispute what are obvious facts, then you're going to end up with a rather-skewed misunderstanding.
Speaking for myself, I've added commentary into your text above. Any reasonable person looking rationally at the issue would be content with the status quo. Where you will find people thinking a ban is justifiable or even important, is where you have people looking at the matter in total isolation of context and without considering the risks, the statistical reliability of the data, the means and probability of exposure, what other factors cause more harm, or where they are simply prejudiced.

 

[Apthorpe]

If this is correct and I have no doubt it is the only question I ask is where were the fields the crops cereals, potatoes, grain, as if for example the fields were adjacent to a clay ground then I would expect the crops could quite well have a higher lead content due to the lead shot falling on the near crop fields and contaminating the crops cereals potatoes etc.

Improbable. Plants take up lead compounds from the soil. Lead may be naturally present in the soil anyway and will have accumulated from airborne contamination since at least Roman times, flood-borne sediments, leaded-fuel use, mining waste etc etc. All of the foregoing are much more toxic than lead ammunition particles.

The article below may be interesting reading.

The unseen dangers of lead contamination in the UK

As floods intensify, the threat of the toxic metal seeping into the food chain is as big a problem as sewage in rivers or air pollution

www.ft.com

just a thought.

 

[Moaky]

I would also add that many of the studies in the US were based on heavily shot waterfowl sites, with millions of pieces of shot spread over large areas where waterfowl may frequent. I think when it comes to rifle calibers and deer and game stalking in particular, the led quantities are negligible when it comes to waterfowl. The ban of centrefire led ammo is a bit ridiculous in my personal opinion. Shotgun ammo, especially around waterfowl......dont feel like I know enough to have a good opinion on that.

 

[User00056]

If this is correct and I have no doubt it is the only question I ask is where were the fields the crops cereals, potatoes, grain, as if for example the fields were adjacent to a clay ground then I would expect the crops could quite well have a higher lead content due to the lead shot falling on the near crop fields and contaminating the crops cereals potatoes etc

It's possible I guess. Bit of a stretch though

I have a suspicion that clay shooting grounds are obligated to keep the fall of shot within their own boundaries though?

 

[Apthorpe]

It's possible I guess. Bit of a stretch though

I have a suspicion that clay shooting grounds are obligated to keep the fall of shot within their own boundaries though?

I think more important than that is the following: there are relatively few clay shooting grounds in the country, and the area of fields which they could possibly contaminate is a very, very small proportion indeed of farmland.

 

[bowji john]

Lead is a heavy metal

It is considered a ‘cumulative’ poison to us and other wildlife

That means that prolonged, or frequent exposure can result in Pb levels increasing in our tissues

As a cumulative poison, it also means that predators will ingest lead already stored in the tissues of those they eat

Chronic (long term) exposure to Lead causes damage to peripheral nerves and the central nervous system

The main ‘routes of body entry’ are - in increasing risk

Skin absorption
Ingestion
Inhalation
Injection

Organic lead is of greater risk than the metal (inorganic lead)

Lead tetra ethyl - an ingredient of the old 4 star petrol is an example of organic lead

Lead fume is a greater problem than lead in solid form

There is plenty of evidence of the toxicity of lead

We have the Lead at Work Regs to control risk from lead in the workplace -,they mandate medical surveillance for workers exposed to lead. This involves taking blood and urine samples periodically

As a cumulative poison it is also a risk factor in the environment

Lead pellets from shot, especially around waterways, is something worth controlling

As for humans

Eating birds REGULARLY that are shot with lead pellets could result in raised blood lead levels - potentially leading to harm

Consuming venison shot by lead bullets could similarly lead to inorganic lead consumption- leading in turn to raised lead blood levels

Now comes the political slight of hand that the activist hopes you will miss

There is No evidence of harm or raised Pb blood levels from eating venison

The evidence is just not there

 

[Buchan]

There is No evidence of harm or raised Pb blood levels from eating venison

The evidence is just not there

This is why I posted the questions. If one types "lead levels from venison consumption" there are a lot of papers, including this one from Norway: Redirecting with this as highlights:

• Cervid meat consumption associated with 31% increase in blood lead concentrations.
• Consumption of minced game meat could explain most of the increase.
• Age and sex were major determinants of blood lead concentrations.
• Adjustment of hunting practices may reduce lead exposure.

Harm specifically from venison is more difficult to quantify, but the raised Pb levels are there and there is plenty of evidence on the biological effect of lead poisoning.

 

[Apthorpe]

This is why I posted the questions. If one types "lead levels from venison consumption" there are a lot of papers, including this one from Norway: Redirecting with this as highlights:

• Cervid meat consumption associated with 31% increase in blood lead concentrations.

This is the last thing I would take away from that study. I learned that shop-bought minced venison might be dodgy and in particular that reloading is a significant hazard and probably better PPE ought to be used when doing it.

• Consumption of minced game meat could explain most of the increase.

Much of the exposure appears to be attributed to this, and in particular, shop-bought minced venison. Now, there are two obvious reasons which might explain this - either the mincer is grinding up big chunks of lead into smaller pieces increasing surface area an consequent bio-availability, or poor quality shot-damaged meat is being minced and sold to maximise profit.

• Age and sex were major determinants of blood lead concentrations.
• Adjustment of hunting practices may reduce lead exposure.

What you haven't mentioned which I think is perhaps the most important finding is that the greatest increase in lead exposure (52%) was found in people who reload. What accounts for this? The answer is that it isn't the bullets (personally, I don't lick them before seating) , it is the fired primer residue. If I changed to using copper bullets, that would be likely to have little effect. People have been fussing about the wrong thing (as is usual for environmentalists); we should be pushing people to use only lead-free primers when reloading (e.g. Fiocchi)

Harm specifically from venison is more difficult to quantify,

Unless that is quantified and distinguished from other factors like primer residues, then you're pushing a false narrative.

but the raised Pb levels are there

To me, it seems important to identify the cause, then to identify what harm it is doing, or even how much higher it is than other cohorts of people. It is very likely that other groups are exposed to higher amounts and go unattended to because of the zeal of activists.

and there is plenty of evidence on the biological effect of lead poisoning.

There is, but it is not relevant to the topic. The issue is sources and extent of exposure. IF you conflate irrelevant aspects, you lose credibility.

 

[bowji john]

I've read the article briefly

I haven't got my head around it properly and It does leave me with some questions

The group under study was a norwegian group of hunters - did they consumed unusually large quantities of venison?

Greater than that which would be expected from a casual consumer ?

Initially I was unsure why re-loading would contribute so greatly to Pb contamination - after all, most hunting rounds are encased in a copper jacket with little or no lead exposed - @Apthorpe offers a credible reason perhaps

Smoking has historically been found to be a causal link to high blood leads.

Poor hygiene combined with 'roll your own cigarettes' can result in higher levels of lead absorption through the lungs - could this be a factor in this study ?

I'm intrigued as to why minced venison was highlighted as a significant factor - could that be because the minced meat was taken from the bullet impact damaged parts of the carcass, leaving the quality cuts for resale ?

If so, could that portion of the carcass carry the greater burden of lead rather than the rest of the carcass?

Blood lead increase associated with age, and therefore perhaps longer term consumption of contaminated meat seems to make sense

If there is indeed a clear link between raised blood leads and consuming hunted venison then I'd expect other control measures to be considered before a blanket ban on lead projectiles - perhaps in line with the 'hierarchy of control measures' as found in British H & S legislation

Just a few thoughts

J

 

[Apthorpe]

I've read the article briefly

I haven't got my head around it properly and It does leave me with some questions

The group under study was a norwegian group of hunters - did they consumed unusually large quantities of venison?

Greater than that which would be expected from a casual consumer ?

Initially I was unsure why re-loading would contribute so greatly to Pb contamination - after all, most hunting rounds are encased in a copper jacket with little or no lead exposed - @Apthorpe offers a credible reason perhaps

To elaborate, I believe the lead styphnate in the primer creates combustion products including solid lead compounds, where the lead is much more bioavailable than metallic lead, which is pretty inert. Those compounds may form dust during reloading or be transferred by skin. Importantly, using copper bullets is not going to reduce blood lead levels much if the primer is the problem.

Smoking has historically been found to be a causal link to high blood leads.

Poor hygiene combined with 'roll your own cigarettes' can result in higher levels of lead absorption through the lungs - could this be a factor in this study ?

I'm intrigued as to why minced venison was highlighted as a significant factor - could that be because the minced meat was taken from the bullet impact damaged parts of the carcass, leaving the quality cuts for resale ?

That is my opinion. I would think people are taking the scraps of meat near the wound channel and mincing it. This seems probable given that it appears to be a bigger issue with shop-bought mince, where obviously the profit motive incentivises maximising the meat used.

If so, could that portion of the carcass carry the greater burden of lead rather than the rest of the carcass?

Apparently so. Which is fairly obvious to the home butcher.

Blood lead increase associated with age, and therefore perhaps longer term consumption of contaminated meat seems to make sense

If there is indeed a clear link between raised blood leads and consuming hunted venison then I'd expect other control measures to be considered before a blanket ban on lead projectiles - perhaps in line with the 'hierarchy of control measures' as found in British H & S legislation

So long as the blood levels observed are significantly higher than in people eating other foods, I would agree. Something parallel to the way fish is treated - i.e. the current regulations would seem sensible.

Just a few thoughts

J

 

[old 30-06]

The supposition amongst some of those who wish to ban lead, is that lead, in the form of lead shot, is ingested by wildfowl, leading to their poisoning and death. They say that the duck pick up this lead shot from the surface of the mud whilst feeding. Numbers are never given, but the suggestion / inference is that it is considerable. So considerable that lead must be banned.

As lead shot is no longer fired over wetlands, surely there should be duck everywhere. If the supposition was true, we should all be seeing a visible increase in the numbers of duck. I have not seen this. Has anyone on here noticed a dramatic increase in the numbers of wildfowl they are seeing ? Are duck increasing in such numbers that we have to shoot them all year round, and with the aid of night vision and thermal ?

I believe that since the introduction of the ban numbers of wildfowl have remained the same. This suggests that the supposition is wrong. We were sold down the river. Therefore, I will not be removing the "toxic" lead flashing from the roof of my house, nor will I be removing the "toxic" lead battery from my car.

 

[ndt man]

Lead is a heavy metal

It is considered a ‘cumulative’ poison to us and other wildlife

That means that prolonged, or frequent exposure can result in Pb levels increasing in our tissues

As a cumulative poison, it also means that predators will ingest lead already stored in the tissues of those they eat

Chronic (long term) exposure to Lead causes damage to peripheral nerves and the central nervous system

The main ‘routes of body entry’ are - in increasing risk

Skin absorption
Ingestion
Inhalation
Injection

Organic lead is of greater risk than the metal (inorganic lead)

Lead tetra ethyl - an ingredient of the old 4 star petrol is an example of organic lead

Lead fume is a greater problem than lead in solid form

There is plenty of evidence of the toxicity of lead

We have the Lead at Work Regs to control risk from lead in the workplace -,they mandate medical surveillance for workers exposed to lead. This involves taking blood and urine samples periodically

As a cumulative poison it is also a risk factor in the environment

Lead pellets from shot, especially around waterways, is something worth controlling

As for humans

Eating birds REGULARLY that are shot with lead pellets could result in raised blood lead levels - potentially leading to harm

Consuming venison shot by lead bullets could similarly lead to inorganic lead consumption- leading in turn to raised lead blood levels

Now comes the political slight of hand that the activist hopes you will miss

There is No evidence of harm or raised Pb blood levels from eating venison

The evidence is just not there

As someone who used to melt lead ingots as part of a manufacturing process using oxy/acet torch around 1/4 ton at a time we had regular health surveillance
every 6 month (blood tests) I personally never had raised pb levels
come to think about it non of the other fitters did either so I find the argument about lead as a means to just ban / curtail the use of lead which will help in reducing shooting sports imo

 

[enfieldspares]

The toxic effects of lead are regularly debated on here with some people having widely differing views. So I'm genuinely interested in the thought of those who don't consider lead a problem, as this relates to some training I do.

So what do you think is incorrect about the accepted scientific understanding that:

a) lead is poisonous, disrupting many body processes
b) it's a cumulative poison with no known safe minimum
c) the effects are particularly bad in the young
d) that lead particles occur in muscle in animals shot with lead bullets away from the actual wound
e) that people who regularly eat meat from animals shot with lead have higher lead levels in their body
f) that birds are highly sensitive to lead

Note - no comment on the accuracy of lead or the knock down, this is purely lead's biological impact

Well they are all correct.

However the argument about lead shot and live quarry is also about a number of other factors. Which could be:

a) Lead is cheap to process and make into pellets or bullets and requires less heat to process it to do so than does iron. Thus less energy (which is usually burning of fossil fuel produced) is used. It can also be easily recycled with minimal energy use by homeloaders to re-melt into "new" pellets or bullets. Or sold to recycle into other lead products to commercial metal recycling firms. I do not yet know of anyone who recycles to use again, or sell for recycling as metal, spent steel shot. And would guess even if picked up it would have lost some of any anti-rust coating or be otherwise unsafe to use as wholly unprocessed raw salvaged shot.

b) Lead causes the least wear when used in gun barrels made of steel and also...as in old "blunderbuss" type weapons...made of brass. Less wear means guns last longer and therefore need to be replaced less often. This is of benefit to the environment as guns can be "recycled" as it were from generation to generation.

c) Lead is ballistically more efficient than metal of lighter mass. Therefore it shoots flatter and penetrates better. Penetration gives better and more humane killing effect.

d) Lead being ballistically more efficient than metals of lighter mass retains its velocity better. This means cartridges can be loaded to a lower pressure than cartridges firing similar projectiles of lighter mass.

e) Lead shot is produced in Europe. Most if not all steel shot is made in China. The environmental impact of transporting steel shot from China to Europe is therefore higher.

f) Lead shot can be fired using wool, cork, paper (pneumatic type) or felt wads. These can even be made at home by homeloaders from locally sourced material. Steel shot requires plastic wads even if they are "biodegradeable" they are still plastic, take longer to degrade, and/or use more energy to initially manufacture. Cork wads do in fact indeed "grow on trees"!

g) Lead shot in cartridges if it is exposed to moisture gets wet. And then it dries out. Steel shot however carries a risk of rusting and "clumping" so potentially risking damaging the weapon it is fired through and also increasing the lethal range of the weapon beyond it usual safe distance.

h) It isn't just about the birds it is about the ALL of it a), b), c), d), e), f), g) as above.