It isn't necessary to prove lead isn't harmful. All that is necessary is to comprehend the existing state of scientific knowledge which is that there isn't solid evidence of lead ammunition used within the existing legal framework actually doing any significant harm. People keep repeating a very basic fundamental error which even sensible children can understand - This is a common law country which means that it is unconstitutional to go around banning things unless there is a very good reason for doing so - as opposed to a massively overstated exaggeration. That is how deranged these anti-lead activists are.
Interesting open letter concerning the lead shot/ammunition ban
- Thread starter Spear Chucker
- Start date
As I've said time and again, I suspect the main cause of elevated systemic levels of lead (in the very few birds the RSPB actually sampled, over something like 40 years) is down to the lead content in the cereals and potatoes they feed by the hundreds of tonnes, on their own reserves. Where shooting has been banned for decades. You literally don't have to dig to deeply to realise the fundamental part of the 'science' is deeply, deeply flawed
You are also talking utter bollox. See below.
It is a completely different molecule. Your comment is as thick as pretending that there's no difference between a diamond and used engine oil. You know better and you're just trying to bull5h1t people on here, as is your habit.
Basic chemistry to follow. If you don't understand this, try to get hold of a moderately educated 15yr old to help you. Lead in ammunition is Pb - the lead molecule in the form of metallic lattice. Chemically fairly inert and not biologically active in that form. Lead in petrol - tetraethyl lead Pb(C2H5)4 - a completely different molecule to lead metal which is biologically reactive, particularly soluble in a way which allows it to get into the brain and extremely toxic owing to the lead being carried in an organic molecule (which is not present in lead ammunition). Lead in paint
Again, yet more nonsense. Some munitions workers became ill from massive exposure to propellants such as TNT in the propellant factories, and very much less so, if at all, in small arms ammunition factories. To be wheeling out as justification for banning lead ammunition, irrelevant cases of hundred year old occupational exposure to completely different chemicals under emergency conditions, just demonstrates yet again how thoroughly stupid the case for banning lead ammunition truly is.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Precisely, shame that BASC/Swift/WJ/Packham etc. have lined up together against the majority view of the shooting community!
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
Well said Sir.
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
Military and LE...about the only applications where lead ammo is genuinely a risk to human life!!
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
Bravo.I think you have read a biased journal on that point.
It was other substances that affected ammunition workers . Phosphorus poisoning was one.
Besides, as you say, it's the same lead used world wide today in munition producers and err, nobody gets ill affecting production.
I know people that have worked at Radway Green for decades, guess what, they aren't ill or affected production.
You are confusing lead derivatives and compounds with the low reactivity of static lead as a metal. Unless you are sucking a lead lollie your good
Every day thousands of medical professionals handle lead too.
And I drink water from a lead pipe and all my neighbours do too. One dear old lady passed away at 96 after living here for 50years.
Now, I don't doubt your findings one bit but I would definitely question as to whether banning lead shot is going to transform the health of the nation.
Us shooters are in a minority so all the victims of lead must be getting it from somewhere else, not from us!
Maybe it's all the zinc coated products that surround us or maybe it's been sprinkled on us from above, I don't know nor care because frankly in this life there are only two eventualities, taxation and death....
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
Considering the state of our water companies and their behaviour, I strongly suspect you have an excellent point. Anything that is fun is seemingly no good for you, although a bit of what you like does you no harm either.
Everything must be banned. Nothing but our ability to use common sense and cope has changed. We have a state and its organs who are convinced that we cannot use our judgement.
it is their judgement that is awry.
DesG
Well-Known Member
So is oxygen.Water IS toxic in large quantities
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
So what do you think happens when all potatoes and cereals are fed to humans? And where do you think the lead comes from, especially we have used lead in petrol for many years?
In terms of agro chemicals and fertilisers, there are very strict regulations on levels of heavy metals that can be in there.
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't need to if our so called representative bodies had done their job and not sold out to the antis. So whether it is going or not makes no difference to the point as to whether it should, or if the measure is correct. I am not so sure the effort is wasted. Other countries have recognised that it is in fact the best and most effective medium and reversed lead bans. We cannot all be perfect the whole time apparently, so by extension neither can everybody be dolts all of the time either. I hope.
Survivorship bias and false conclusions.
I saw an interesting You Tube programme last night on American B-17 "Flying Fortress" bombers. These suffered greatly in daylight bombing with many lost to enemy fire and others only just managing to return to their home airfields but badly shot up and some then having to be scrapped as being beyond repair to be able to ever safely fly again.
So the US Army Air Force made a study of these returned badly shot up 'planes. Marking the damage on the outline of a drawing of the 'plane and decided that the solution would be to add armour to the areas that this diagram showed as getting the most hits from enemy fire.
Until...
Until a more intelligent mind said that they were using the wrong logic. That their survey result gave a false conclusion. That in fact the areas that needed to be reinforced with added armour were those areas on the badly damaged and returned aircraft were those areas THAT SHOWED NO HITS.
As the actuality was that as none that came back had any hits in the same undamaged areas this meant that by simple deduction that any hit in what on a surviving plane was an undamaged area was actually fatal to a 'plane that was hit in that area. Which is why those that come back showed no hits in those areas.
So by extension to what we do the ONLY research some are relying on is that they have found lead shot in the gizzards of wild dead ducks. There may be considerably more wild ducks that also have lead shot in their gizzards that aren't picked to the be dissected because they haven't died from it. So therefore the survey by only using wild dead birds is based on flawed evidence.
Again the reply many have given as to "where then are all these dead wild duck"?
And that surveys based on captive bids dosed with lead are also to be discounted as the dosing of them may far exceed what would be, if any, the amount of lead in the gizzard of a wild bird. So basing a survey on what you have to hand (be that survived 'planes) or dead wild birds is incorrect as what you actually should be surveying is the very things you can NEVER survey (shot down 'planes or live wild duck).
See 2:50 onwards in the video. It is called "survivorship bias". In the Wikipedia article what is relatable to wild ducks is the paragraph about cats falling from buildings.
In this case the vice-versa in that wild duck that have ingested some lead shot and survive are never subject to testing. As still being alive they are therefore never sampled. In simple terms some would therefore condemn such conclusions based on dead wild birds as useless as being no more that the equivalent of "cherry picking" dressed up as supposed science.
en.wikipedia.org
I saw an interesting You Tube programme last night on American B-17 "Flying Fortress" bombers. These suffered greatly in daylight bombing with many lost to enemy fire and others only just managing to return to their home airfields but badly shot up and some then having to be scrapped as being beyond repair to be able to ever safely fly again.
So the US Army Air Force made a study of these returned badly shot up 'planes. Marking the damage on the outline of a drawing of the 'plane and decided that the solution would be to add armour to the areas that this diagram showed as getting the most hits from enemy fire.
Until...
Until a more intelligent mind said that they were using the wrong logic. That their survey result gave a false conclusion. That in fact the areas that needed to be reinforced with added armour were those areas on the badly damaged and returned aircraft were those areas THAT SHOWED NO HITS.
As the actuality was that as none that came back had any hits in the same undamaged areas this meant that by simple deduction that any hit in what on a surviving plane was an undamaged area was actually fatal to a 'plane that was hit in that area. Which is why those that come back showed no hits in those areas.
So by extension to what we do the ONLY research some are relying on is that they have found lead shot in the gizzards of wild dead ducks. There may be considerably more wild ducks that also have lead shot in their gizzards that aren't picked to the be dissected because they haven't died from it. So therefore the survey by only using wild dead birds is based on flawed evidence.
Again the reply many have given as to "where then are all these dead wild duck"?
And that surveys based on captive bids dosed with lead are also to be discounted as the dosing of them may far exceed what would be, if any, the amount of lead in the gizzard of a wild bird. So basing a survey on what you have to hand (be that survived 'planes) or dead wild birds is incorrect as what you actually should be surveying is the very things you can NEVER survey (shot down 'planes or live wild duck).
See 2:50 onwards in the video. It is called "survivorship bias". In the Wikipedia article what is relatable to wild ducks is the paragraph about cats falling from buildings.
In this case the vice-versa in that wild duck that have ingested some lead shot and survive are never subject to testing. As still being alive they are therefore never sampled. In simple terms some would therefore condemn such conclusions based on dead wild birds as useless as being no more that the equivalent of "cherry picking" dressed up as supposed science.
Survivorship bias - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I suspect the exact same thing happens to us as to anything else that ingests lead on a systemic level. And remember, just because the RSPB inspected a few carcasses and declared they showed elevated levels doesn't mean that was the cause of death. Smoke and mirrors is all the 'science' is. Zero facts, figures, or examples to back it up. I strongly suspect each and every one of up of a certain age will show elevated systemic levels of lead as a result of the very things you mention
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Oh dear, the friends of Packham are emerging from the woodwork!
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
I absolutely detest Packham. I am very much pro shooting, hunting and conservation. They absolutely go hand in hand, as if we don’t look after our environment then there is nothing to hunt or shoot.
Lead is one of the most toxic substances out there. And yet for 250 cartridges you shoot you are spreading 6 to 7 kg of lead on the land.
We don’t actually know or understand the full harms this is doing, because nobody has spent the money on doing the research.
But, save for a few vintage guns, there are perfectly good and affordable alternatives now available that will allow us continue shooting without causing the harms to the environment. This seems totally logical to me.
The likes of Packham are very anti shooting - always are, always will be. I have inherited some hunting books from the early 1800’s - there is a chapter on the anti brigade in those days. We will never beat them.
Instead we need to focus on keeping the middle ground on side. I have had conversations on more than one occasion with a neutral / opposing shooting type people. Once I have explained what and why they are middle ground. But then the subject of lead and lead pollution comes up. And i have no defence to their arguments.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
I think we'll agree to differ
People used to have a certain amount of respect for the duck shooter out in all weathers at all hours to feed his family, but how can people expect that sort of respect when cartridges cost more than the meals they provide. This is the result of a hunter gatherer activity degenerating into a 'sport' for people with more money than sense.
I challenge anyone to prove that picking your nose and farting at the same time is NOT harmful to the hunting success of sperm whales at depth
If it cannot be proved then we should ban all picking of noses, farting and sperm whales diving to depth
The point?
Science tries to find a positive link between cause and effect
It is rarely charged with finding no link
Why?
You cannot prove a negative
I’ve grown bored with the politically motivated pseudoscience
J
If it cannot be proved then we should ban all picking of noses, farting and sperm whales diving to depth
The point?
Science tries to find a positive link between cause and effect
It is rarely charged with finding no link
Why?
You cannot prove a negative
I’ve grown bored with the politically motivated pseudoscience
J
Similar threads
