Interesting open letter concerning the lead shot/ammunition ban

[timbrayford]

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.

I think we'll agree to differ

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

Absolutely, where is the proof that steel shot isn't damaging to both people and wildlife, likewise biowads?

 

[Pedro]

Oh dear, the friends of Packham are emerging from the woodwork!

How does my post make me a friend of Packham? Which incidentally not only am I not, but I oppose his views vehemently. I was simply saying it's a battle lost.

Yours sincerely,
confused from Cumbria.

 

[Spear Chucker]

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.

"We will never beat them". Good job our grandparents didn't think like that. Good job you weren't in Germany with an attitude like that either, you'd have (at best) been incarcerated for defeatism.
"Instead we need to focus on keeping the middle ground on side." Compromise...never works. These people want no compromise, or if they do, once they have one, they want another. Your way is the way into the ditch. Death by a thousand compromises.
"And i have no defence to their arguments" I suspect that is more to do with the fact that you cannot argue because you are not thinking accurately, independently or objectively about the facts. You have just surrendered intellectually. May be it is an age thing. You have no argument because you are not trying.
Answer:
(Like Mr T said) Get Some Nuts!

 

[enfieldspares]

Science tries to find a positive link between cause and effect

And, back to my survivorship bias it is also fact that ALL wild ducks eventually die. Yet, again, what their dissection of those found does not show is how long they were alive after they had consumed the lead shot that was in their gizzards when they were dissected. Or that in fact they may have died from starvation or just frozen to death. Or from simple old age. Or other causes that were not tested for as doing so would have queered the answer that they were being paid to prove?

 

[timbrayford]

How does my post make me a friend of Packham? Which incidentally not only am I not, but I oppose his views vehemently. I was simply saying it's a battle lost.

Yours sincerely,
confused from Cumbria.

Err Packham supports the lead ban!
With the greatest of respect might I suggest that you follow the audit trail of the LAG, BASC, Swift and Wild Justice which leads us precisely to where we are today. The meeting minutes are on the LAG website

 

[Rewulf]

Lead is one of the most toxic substances out there.

That statement, is just ridiculously inaccurate.
If lead were so toxic, the first port of call would to replace ALL lead water pipes in the UK, ban avgas for light aircraft, strip church roofs and old house flashings and any other application where lead was involved.
But we are not, instead we are setting about banning lead ammunition where no single person has become ill.

And if you think lead water pipes arent harmful, ask the residents of Flint MI Flint water crisis - Wikipedia

 

[Spear Chucker]

And, back to my survivorship bias it is also fact that ALL wild ducks eventually die. Yet, again, what their dissection of those found does not show is how long they were alive after they had consumed the lead shot that was in their gizzards when they were dissected. Or that in fact they may have died from starvation or just frozen to death. Or from simple old age. Or other causes that were not tested for as doing so would have queered the answer that they were being paid to prove?

It was an excellent film and useful. It isn't always what you can see in front of you that matters. The answers are there, we just need to think independently of what is being fed to us by our eyes and ears. Critical analysis, rather than just swallowing what we're fed

 

[timbrayford]

That statement, is just ridiculously inaccurate.
If lead were so toxic, the first port of call would to replace ALL lead water pipes in the UK, ban avgas for light aircraft, strip church roofs and old house flashings and any other application where lead was involved.
But we are not, instead we are setting about banning lead ammunition where no single person has become ill.

And if you think lead water pipes arent harmful, ask the residents of Flint MI Flint water crisis - Wikipedia

If lead is that toxic why no military ban?

 

[Smellydog]

Lead is one of the most toxic substances out there

Nope, it is not. Benzine in fuel is far worse, that replaced the lead in fuel. Benzine is a carcinogenic.
Dna changing formaldehyde is worse but widely used.
Chlorine is worse but widely used.
Burning plastic wastes releases dioxins and goes on legally.

You have blinkers on our friend.

 

[tackb]

If lead is that toxic why no military ban?

and why no Hazchem restrictions on it's possession and use , pretty sure if it was a toxic as claimed it would require a lot of PPE , certainly more than plutonium for example !

 

[Pedro]

Err Packham supports the lead ban!
With the greatest of respect might I suggest that you follow the audit trail of the LAG, BASC, Swift and Wild Justice which leads us precisely to where we are today. The meeting minutes are on the LAG website

Err Packham might well support the lead ban. But I don't. Doh!!

 

[Heym SR20]

Nope, it is not. Benzine in fuel is far worse, that replaced the lead in fuel. Benzine is a carcinogenic.
Dna changing formaldehyde is worse but widely used.
Chlorine is worse but widely used.
Burning plastic wastes releases dioxins and goes on legally.

You have blinkers on our friend.

I wouldn’t disagree with you at all. Many modern chemicals are really nasty. Plastics especially - microplastics are able to pass through cellular walls which is very scary.

As a dominant species, mankind absolutely needs to find a way to live in balance with nature. We did for most of mankind. Once we started becoming agrarian and living in cities etc and exchanging our learning, we have lost these skills. There are plenty of societies that over used their natural resources and died out. Lost cities in the Amazon, those who built Great Zimbabwe. Over the last 200 odd years we have been using up the earths resources in a non sustainable way. How many more generations we will have to - God alone knows, but I suspect not that long till we have another massive die off akin to the Black Death were 50% plus did not survive.

 

[Spear Chucker]

That statement, is just ridiculously inaccurate.
If lead were so toxic, the first port of call would to replace ALL lead water pipes in the UK, ban avgas for light aircraft, strip church roofs and old house flashings and any other application where lead was involved.
But we are not, instead we are setting about banning lead ammunition where no single person has become ill.

And if you think lead water pipes arent harmful, ask the residents of Flint MI Flint water crisis - Wikipedia

Agree with: "That statement, is just ridiculously inaccurate.
If lead were so toxic, the first port of call would to replace ALL lead water pipes in the UK, ban avgas for light aircraft, strip church roofs and old house flashings and any other application where lead was involved.
But we are not, instead we are setting about banning lead ammunition where no single person has become ill."

Potentially disagree with: "And if you think lead water pipes arent harmful, ask the residents of Flint MI Flint water crisis - Wikipedia"
This on the grounds that actually it appears that lead isn't the problem but originally coliform bacteria which discoloured and scented the water. The action of significantly increasing the content of Chlorination in the water killed the coliforms but then produced (as a known side effect apparently) excessive quantities of Trihalomenthanes. Trihalomethanes are closely liked (apparently) to cancers and other diseases.

So, again, not lead. Yes, lead was present in the pipes, but the source water in this case was apparently contaminated with coliform bacteria. The water companies answer was to flood the system with higher than safe concentrations of chlorine, which then introduced the really nasty, grown up stuff. If I was Metallic Lead, (as opposed to the many derivative and more soluble forms that are dangerous) I would be developing a pretty serious complex...being wrongly blamed for everything!!

 

[Spear Chucker]

Nope, it is not. Benzine in fuel is far worse, that replaced the lead in fuel. Benzine is a carcinogenic.
Dna changing formaldehyde is worse but widely used.
Chlorine is worse but widely used.
Burning plastic wastes releases dioxins and goes on legally.

You have blinkers on our friend.

Beginning to wonder if Heym is a copper trader.

 

[Rewulf]

I wouldn’t disagree with you at all. Many modern chemicals are really nasty. Plastics especially - microplastics are able to pass through cellular walls which is very scary.

So you are agreeing that lead is NOT 'One of the most toxic substances out there' ?
Why would you say it in the first place ?

As a dominant species, mankind absolutely needs to find a way to live in balance with nature. We did for most of mankind. Once we started becoming agrarian and living in cities etc and exchanging our learning, we have lost these skills. There are plenty of societies that over used their natural resources and died out. Lost cities in the Amazon, those who built Great Zimbabwe. Over the last 200 odd years we have been using up the earths resources in a non sustainable way. How many more generations we will have to - God alone knows, but I suspect not that long till we have another massive die off akin to the Black Death were 50% plus did not survive.

I wouldnt worry about it, Greta and Mr Gore have told us this is the 'last generation' so we only have about 80 years to go anyway before the seas boil.
And its irreversible apparently, the last chance to avert it was 2018

 

[Spear Chucker]

How does my post make me a friend of Packham? Which incidentally not only am I not, but I oppose his views vehemently. I was simply saying it's a battle lost.

Yours sincerely,
confused from Cumbria.

Don't be an old grump. You need to watch more Disney films Old China.
The underdog always wins.
You just have to "be true to yourself" and remember that "if you can dream it, you can do it". Don't forget, "All our dreams can come true if we have the courage to pursue them". You just have to "Remember Who You Are". It is "kind of fun to do the impossible" so try being positive. Turn your frown Upside down.
Surrender Monkey You Ain't!

 

[Rewulf]

This on the grounds that actually it appears that lead isn't the problem but originally coliform bacteria which discoloured and scented the water.

Thank you, I did read it first, and any deaths that occurred were apparently bacterial, but lead levels in some supplies were 7 x the 'safe levels' which I found interesting, because we are told there is no safe level.
Either way, the people of Flint got extra leaded water, and no one seemed to care in authority, because it saved a few $

 

[Spear Chucker]

Thank you, I did read it first, and any deaths that occurred were apparently bacterial, but lead levels in some supplies were 7 x the 'safe levels' which I found interesting, because we are told there is no safe level.
Either way, the people of Flint got extra leaded water, and no one seemed to care in authority, because it saved a few $

It would be interesting to find out what compound of lead was present...I'll have a fiver on it not being from metallic lead pipes unless the lead was destabilised and released by the chlorine. Of course, as we know, if they'd used the isotopic mass spectrometry testing method, it would be clear as to the origin of the lead present. However, not unlike the RSPB (whose report the GCWT used as the basis for their position on lead shot-because they are donkeys) Isotopic Mass Spectrometry was not used. In the case of the RSPB, that is because Isotopic Mass Spectrometry was expensive, likely to show their guesswork to be utter borrocks and not nearly as much fun as just making it up. In Flint's case, the culprits they were after were the coliforms (tummy bugs and worse) and Trihalomethanes (cancers etc). They merely noted lead was significantly raised, but not the root cause of the problem.
Interesting stuff though. The deeper you dig, the clearer it is that Heym is on the Angolan Copper Marketing board, or Mr P himself and that BASC GCWT and the CA have actually been bought (or hacked) by the Chinese and the Antis.

 

[Chris Richardson]

You are talking utter bollox. The real science is being done in man and looking at the effects of lead on our immune systems. Most in the shooting community, nor in the wider public are aware of such research. But it’s widely understood within the medical and increasingly amongst public health, and it is this that has driven the phasing out of lead from every day walks of life.

They used to use lead solder to seal cans of meat and fish. This was found to give rise to all sorts of health issues in the 1950’s and 60’s, so lead is no longer used in packaging of food products.

The pro lead side seem to think that lead used in shot is a completely different molecule to that used in lead solders, piping, or in compounds in paints, petrol etc. and is completely different from lead used in military ammunition that caused great concern to the war department’s in WW1 and 2, as ammunition workers kept getting ill, and interfered with production.

Just like that time you said someone had low levels of lead in his system then you deliberately misquoted him to say he had high levels ?

 

[Smellydog]

I wouldn’t disagree with you at all. Many modern chemicals are really nasty. Plastics especially - microplastics are able to pass through cellular walls which is very scary.

As a dominant species, mankind absolutely needs to find a way to live in balance with nature. We did for most of mankind. Once we started becoming agrarian and living in cities etc and exchanging our learning, we have lost these skills. There are plenty of societies that over used their natural resources and died out. Lost cities in the Amazon, those who built Great Zimbabwe. Over the last 200 odd years we have been using up the earths resources in a non sustainable way. How many more generations we will have to - God alone knows, but I suspect not that long till we have another massive die off akin to the Black Death were 50% plus did not survive.

I don't doubt what you just said.
But it won't be down to lead hey!
Even you are currently still using it!