Lead and nontoxic debate

For those who think lead isn’t an issue in the human body
This is a misunderstanding about the objections to a lead ban.
Those who question the rationale behind a ban argue that the form any ingested lead takes makes a fundamental difference to the degree of harm, which ranges from not measurable (people who spend a lifetime regularly eating shot game) to dangerously severe (Chinese kids who are fed toxic paint for months).
 
Lead without a doubt has health concerns too humans, but so does copper
Absorption In the human body also matters too though something like lead paint was banned as incredibly easy for us to ingest and absorb.

Something like a shotgun pellet for the most part runs through the body before any significant amount of metal sheds, Its why people that eat wild game for the most part never really have unusually high lead levels.

Where someone on the other hand that drinks out of lead water pipes consistently (significantly more often than eating wild game) have elevated levels.
 
Apart from anything else... Does anyone guzzle down their pheasant, partridge, grouse, woodcock or pigeon so greedily that they don't pause to pick out any pellets? I guess such people swallow the bones, too - a much quicker route to A&E.
I can't believe people don't take most of the lead pellets out at the butchering stage or is that just me.
And if you are that bothered get a small metal detector.
 
Toxicity of lead depends a lot on the form it takes and length of exposure and when you’re exposed. Children generally suffer the worst from heavy metal exposures as it’s when the CNS and body is still developing. If it’s 200 times over the safe exposure limit then doesn’t matter what you ingest.
 
Toxicity of lead depends a lot on the form it takes and length of exposure and when you’re exposed. Children generally suffer the worst from heavy metal exposures as it’s when the CNS and body is still developing. If it’s 200 times over the safe exposure limit then doesn’t matter what you ingest.
I was forced to eat rabbit and pigeon as a kid and can't stand either now, but the puzzle is that was 60 odd years and I haven't even got sick from lead poisoning, let alone died from it.
 
There was a video A few years back, I believe the head buyer for Waitrose when they announced that they would stop stocking game shot with lead.

Their reasoning was simple. Because there is no deemed safe level of lead to ingest they cannot stock it, and cannot answer the question when a mum looking to feed her children asks is it safe.

Now there will be multiple come backs and options to this, but the reasoning is simple.

There is no safe level deemed and therefore when some asks is it safe they can’t say yes.
 
I was forced to eat rabbit and pigeon as a kid and can't stand either now, but the puzzle is that was 60 odd years and I haven't even got sick from lead poisoning, let alone died from it.
Was also reared on it and still doing me no harm, even after working at lead mine for a number of years I’m still fine. My post was more than lead from shooting is far different from lead from paint or ingested other ways. Metal mobility and absorption into the blood stream takes place in different ways. Plants or animals high in metals that have bioaccumulated in their systems is very different to lead particles from a fragmented lead core
 
There was a video A few years back, I believe the head buyer for Waitrose when they announced that they would stop stocking game shot with lead.

Their reasoning was simple. Because there is no deemed safe level of lead to ingest they cannot stock it, and cannot answer the question when a mum looking to feed her children asks is it safe.

Now there will be multiple come backs and options to this, but the reasoning is simple.

There is no safe level deemed and therefore when some asks is it safe they can’t say yes.
That is and was complete bullsh1t. There was some backroom dealing.

They still stock potatoes and rice containing lead.

This nonsense about “no safe level of….” Used as a reason to exclude things is a scientifically illiterate misunderstanding of what the term means. It does not mean that any level of exposure necessarily creates a risk.

If we take this “precautionary principle” seriously, the most important thing we must do is to immediately cease all radio, TV and satellite coomunications forever, because of the risk of extinction if detected by aliens.
 
Guys - I meant it when I said I had no axe to grind.
But stupid things like this grab headlines and people react.

My own personal view is that we know that lead as a substance in our bodies isn’t great. As are many others like nicotine and alcohol !

As much as we can, we can only educate people about what happens to the shot once it does its job.
Some will believe our point of view, many more won’t, because of headlines similar to the one I posted.
I posted it for awareness and discussion.
 
There was a video A few years back, I believe the head buyer for Waitrose when they announced that they would stop stocking game shot with lead.

Their reasoning was simple. Because there is no deemed safe level of lead to ingest they cannot stock it, and cannot answer the question when a mum looking to feed her children asks is it safe.

Now there will be multiple come backs and options to this, but the reasoning is simple.

There is no safe level deemed and therefore when some asks is it safe they can’t say yes.
No deemed safe level and no safe level are entirely different things,but why not a simple retail ban on lead shot game instead of the broad brush ban it all proposals?
 
Guys - I meant it when I said I had no axe to grind.
But stupid things like this grab headlines and people react.

My own personal view is that we know that lead as a substance in our bodies isn’t great. As are many others like nicotine and alcohol !

As much as we can, we can only educate people about what happens to the shot once it does its job.
Some will believe our point of view, many more won’t, because of headlines similar to the one I posted.
I posted it for awareness and discussion.
Accepted, but.....if I post an article about youths being stabbed with steel knives and actually dying, can I claim that it is more relevant to persuade people who believe that using steel based ammo is safe?
 
Accepted, but.....if I post an article about youths being stabbed with steel knives and actually dying, can I claim that it is more relevant to persuade people who believe that using steel based ammo is safe?
Would you have preferred me not to post it and remain ignorant of the headline and it’s possible effect ?
 
Back
Top