Lead and opinion

[timbrayford]

Agreed on all three counts. BUT, the caveat is that I personally don't believe that the mechanisms of lead distribution and ingestion lead to any of the above actually being manifested in reality.

In reality this would appear to be the case, as I understand it the scientists have actually claimed that they have no test to determine the safe level of lead, however the continued healthy existence of those of us who have been exposed to it rather illustrates a tolerance level exists.

 

[Buchan]

In reality this would appear to be the case, as I understand it the scientists have actually claimed that they have no test to determine the safe level of lead, however the continued healthy existence of those of us who have been exposed to it rather illustrates a tolerance level exists.

I think the issue is that there are signs of lead poisoning at levels of 5mg/100ml which may be the lowest that instruments can measure and as blood is a reflection of recent exposure and bone levels are likely to be higher, there seems little to be gained in creating a more sensitive test.

 

[Buchan]

Which ought to have perhaps rung an alarm bell?

That is something of a deflection. The pertinent fact is that the case you've cited cannot be confidently represented as actually being somebody poisoned by ingesting food contaminated with lead ammunition. (She did not admit having eaten game meat at all in the relevant period, the particle did not correlate to any legal or plausible projectile , and the authors made spurious statements about it. ) You have not admitted that fact, even though the authors did. I'm having difficulty accepting that you can read that and reach the opposite conclusion, without being significantly biased. Where am I wrong in this?
The other cases include people swallowing fishing weights and so on.

With respect, the absence of the critical parts of your case are hardly exceptions or loopholes. What you are doing, in common with fellow travellers, is simply making a limited case, extrapolating it far beyond the limits of what can be supported by evidence and then claiming that the case is conclusive, and treating those who notice the fact that the evidence is weak or non-existent as being less rational than you. Instead of either re-assessing your opinion in light of what the facts actually indicate, or amend the case to address its deficiencies, they continue to persist in a seriously defective path by making straw man arguments revolving around irrelevances to do with leaded petrol, paint, industrial lead, condors, the fact that lead is toxic when people are exposed to its compounds etc. This is incorrect.

In fact, your argument in favour of lead ammunition causing harm to human health consists entirely of exceptions - which aren't even necessarily compelling exceptions. Surely you can acknowledge this?


That is not in dispute. However, it is also very, very different from the opinion that lead ammunition is so harmful to human and animal health as to merit a ban.

Can I check, not being a metallurgist, is there any difference between lead shot and lead weights or other metallic lead objects? I understand them to be the same (maybe some antimony) so regardless of origin, an ingested lead object will produce the same release of lead into the body.

 

[Apthorpe]

Can I check, not being a metallurgist, is there any difference between lead shot and lead weights or other metallic lead objects? I understand them to be the same (maybe some antimony) so regardless of origin, an ingested lead object will produce the same release of lead into the body.

Are you deliberately, or accidentally and persistently, failing to grasp the point?
We all know lead exposure can cause harm including through ingestion. The issue is that lead ammunition has not been properly shown to cause significant harm because there is not sufficient credible evidence in animals or humans of widespread exposure, nor of harm being caused as a result.
In the absence of good evidence of people suffering lead poisoning in significant numbers from eating game, and the absence of genuine evidence of wildlife being significantly exposed to expended lead projectiles, there simply is no case for banning lead ammunition. You're not making a case here, you're just repeating some parallel information which is not in dispute nor of any consequence to whether to ban lead ammunition.

The fact that it is possible to find a few idiots who've swallowed fishing weights, nails etc. is not a relevant piece of evidence.

 

[Apthorpe]

Can I check, not being a metallurgist, is there any difference between lead shot and lead weights or other metallic lead objects?

Fishing weights and other objects habe not been fired from a gun. That is the difference. You can find evidence of human lead poisoning from other sources but not from using lead ammunition.

I understand them to be the same (maybe some antimony) so regardless of origin, an ingested lead object will produce the same release of lead into the body.

 

[Martes]

Are you deliberately, or accidentally and persistently, failing to grasp the point?
We all know lead exposure can cause harm including through ingestion. The issue is that lead ammunition has not been properly shown to cause significant harm because there is not sufficient credible evidence in animals or humans of widespread exposure, nor of harm being caused as a result.
In the absence of good evidence of people suffering lead poisoning in significant numbers from eating game, and the absence of genuine evidence of wildlife being significantly exposed to expended lead projectiles, there simply is no case for banning lead ammunition. You're not making a case here, you're just repeating some parallel information which is not in dispute nor of any consequence to whether to ban lead ammunition.

The fact that it is possible to find a few idiots who've swallowed fishing weights, nails etc. is not a relevant piece of evidence.

Sorry, are you suggesting that there is no evidence that Raptor populations are suppressed by lead exposure?

 

[Apthorpe]

Sorry, are you suggesting that there is no evidence that Raptor populations are suppressed by lead exposure?

You can see perfectly well what I wrote. I am not going to engage in debate about something I didn’t write. If you have some input or evidence which you think adds constructively to the topic, do please post it. On the other hand, if you’re minded to engage in straw-man trolling, I shall be providing you with little entertainment.

 

[AGR]

Sorry, are you suggesting that there is no evidence that Raptor populations are suppressed by lead exposure?

I think we all accept that all birds are more susceptible to lead poisoning. They have a totally different digestive system.

 

[Apthorpe]

I think we all accept that all birds are more susceptible to lead poisoning. They have a totally different digestive system.

I’m not sure that that is actually true for many types of bird. Their susceptibility to poisoning appears to be similar to other animals. Birds do however eat an exceptionally large amount, and are perhaps at a higher risk - if they are actually exposed to much lead in their food. A detailed study by the primary anti-lead shot activists of lead poisoning in raptors found only 13 raptors deemed by the authors to have been poisoned by lead in the UK over a review period exceeding 40 years. I’m sure the real number actually poisoned was considerably higher, but nobody is able to generate a dependable estimate because doing so requires, so much estimation, modelling and statistical manipulation as to be undependable. The headline they promoted was that 55,000 raptors had been killed as a consequence of lead ammunition poisoning across Europe. Note the massive disparity. No doubt others could use the same data and construct estimates that shooting in the UK had increasedd the populations of raptors.

When it comes down to it, much of what is “common knowledge” about lead poisoning and birds is really just propaganda.

 

[AGR]

I’m not sure that that is actually true for many types of bird. Their susceptibility to poisoning appears to be similar to other animals. Birds do however eat an exceptionally large amount, and are perhaps at a higher risk - if they are actually exposed to much lead in their food. A detailed study by the primary anti-lead shot activists of lead poisoning in raptors found only 13 raptors deemed by the authors to have been poisoned by lead in the UK over a review period exceeding 40 years. I’m sure the real number actually poisoned was considerably higher, but nobody is able to generate a dependable estimate because doing so requires, so much estimation, modelling and statistical manipulation as to be undependable. The headline they promoted was that 55,000 raptors had been killed as a consequence of lead ammunition poisoning across Europe. Note the massive disparity. No doubt others could use the same data and construct estimates that shooting in the UK had increasedd the populations of raptors.

When it comes down to it, much of what is “common knowledge” about lead poisoning and birds is really just propaganda.

The fact that lead is broken down in a gizzard rather than passing through makes them more susceptible. (See my post about pheasant poults).

 

[Apthorpe]

Deleted. Not going to digress.

 

[User00056]

When it comes down to it, much of what is “common knowledge” about lead poisoning and birds is really just propaganda.

I agree. The raptor issues in particular is contentious in my opinion. Sure, they have a gizzard, but as this is primarily geared to the production of undigestible pellets that are subsequently ejected surely the metabolisation of pulverised lead is a completely red herring? Especially when you consider just how much lead they'd need to consume in the first place. The countryside isn't in reality ankle-deep in accessible carcasses filled with lead shot, so the argument that lead kills raptors can (to my mind anyway) effectively be classed as emotive hysteria

 

[Buchan]

Are you deliberately, or accidentally and persistently, failing to grasp the point?
We all know lead exposure can cause harm including through ingestion. The issue is that lead ammunition has not been properly shown to cause significant harm because there is not sufficient credible evidence in animals or humans of widespread exposure, nor of harm being caused as a result.
In the absence of good evidence of people suffering lead poisoning in significant numbers from eating game, and the absence of genuine evidence of wildlife being significantly exposed to expended lead projectiles, there simply is no case for banning lead ammunition. You're not making a case here, you're just repeating some parallel information which is not in dispute nor of any consequence to whether to ban lead ammunition.

The fact that it is possible to find a few idiots who've swallowed fishing weights, nails etc. is not a relevant piece of evidence.

I did a literature search today. Looking for the terms "lead poisoning" and "ammunition" 191 results.
Wildlife
There is a very comprehensive review of lead poisoning of raptors from this year: Lead poisoning of raptors: state of the science and cross-discipline mitigation options for a global problem doi: 10.1111/brv.13087 I've also read plenty of case reports of waterfowl suffering from ingested lead shot. The credible evidence is there, birds die as a result of the ingestion of lead ammunition.
Humans
Certainly fewer cases of lead poisoning and I couldn't find any relating to a human death from lead shot. However there are reports of high blood lead levels in people eating meat with lead in it, including one curious one where the hunter only ate shot meat, had high blood lead, which started to fall when he switched to non-lead. Redirecting

So the evidence that lead can enter the body through ingestion from ammunition is there.

Is it killing people? - probably not based on my searching. Could it be harming people at a low level and present a risk to un-born children? - absolutely. Is it killing wildlife? - yes, both directly and in sub-lethal effects. Is it harming populations? - possibly not, the review I mentioned points to this as a gap in the evidence.

With the exception of .22RF and airgun, there is no compelling reason to retain lead as ammunition for hunting.

 

[timbrayford]

I think the issue is that there are signs of lead poisoning at levels of 5mg/100ml which may be the lowest that instruments can measure and as blood is a reflection of recent exposure and bone levels are likely to be higher, there seems little to be gained in creating a more sensitive test.

I can't agree, there is a distinct lack of evidence of clinical illness resulting from consuming lead shot game, as opposed to other researched forms of lead exposure such as those impacted by their occupation etc. Surely if there is a potentially serious toxic metal issue it's mercuric amalgam dental fillings?

 

[AGR]

The whole lead argument is fairly pointless now, as we await an imminent ban on it's use, (with a few exceptions).
See the post Lead Update quoting the NRA.

 

[hendrix's rifle]

With the exception of .22RF and airgun, there is no compelling reason to retain lead as ammunition for hunting.

But there is. Tell me, how many people have died in this country by eating lead contaminated meat? 0.
How many people in the UK have died because of it? 0. How many people are sick/dieing because of it? Erm, 0. That suggests, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it as we are doing currently.

Yes, lead is toxic. So is going outside and standing on the street as a car passes. The whole world came to a complete standstill just a few years ago with COVID. The fact is, everything we do on a daily basis has potential for you to come in to contact with something that's toxic/has potential to kill you and far more likely to do so than lead.

It won't be long before the forestry companies ban the use of copper projectiles as they kill trees. Then what are we going to do? I believe there's already one or two that have however I don't know the names of them (someone on here will know considerably more than me).

Lastly, as I've alluded to in another post, training. I shoot anywhere from 20-200 a month. Whether it's deer, gongs, paper, you name it. Even drop data at extended ranges. People won't be having trigger time and continuing to learn key fundamental shooting skills because with anything other than lead, it's too bloody expensive. I for one won't be paying over £100 to ring some steel on a range day with my mates. Not a chance. I doubt they will either! These key skills are perishable and without continuous training/learning, we're going to end up with loads of poor shooters because they can't afford that trigger time.

Rant over

 

[tjm160]

NRA of the UK

Final Report on the Prohibition of Lead Ammunition for Outdoor Shooting UK Reach have today published their final report recommending the prohibition of the use of most lead ammunition used in...

www.facebook.com

 

[Sinistral]

Not everyone spends their lives on their 'phone or Facebook, thank God.
Read the source document directly. Ultimately that's all that matters.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/restrictions/rr-aavi-0821.pdf

 

[tjm160]

Thankfully, not everyone is so ignorant either

 

[old 30-06]

I am quite happy to use lead in both shotguns and rifle. The main reason is that lead kills (the target) better. It is the right tool for the job. It has had centuries of use in both sporting and military applications across the entire globe. It has never been beaten. If it is not broke, do not fix it !

Everything else that has been tried falls short in one respect or another, or more. I know that a lot of effort is going into finding alternatives, WHY ? Go to a clay ground that has been using lead for over 50 years. Look at the grass. Look at the trees. Look at the wildlife around the site. You will not find "scorched earth", or a desert, or bubonic plague ! You will see green trees, green grass, and lots of wildlife. There must have been tons and tons and tons of lead scattered over that concentrated area for fifty years or more, yet it looks the same as everywhere else.

We have been stampeded (by our own organisations) in much the same way as is now happening with electric cars. Get a grip on reality, and use the right tool for the job, lead.