This is the last paragraph of the author's conclusion - I've put some bits in bold:Shows are markedly higher levels of lead in the blood of German hunters who regularly eat lead shot game meat.
In conclusion, concentration of lead in blood was significantly higher in game meat consumers compared to study participants consuming no game meat. Additionally, in study participants with no game meat consumption, blood lead concentration was significantly higher in those who perform active hunting as well as shooting. However, overall differences in lead blood concentrations were very low and mostly below the biological tolerance value of 200 µg·L− 1. Nevertheless, game meat consumers as well as active hunters and shooters should take in to account their potential for an increased lead exposure and the corresponding potential health risks. Monitoring of blood lead level may detect concentrations above the recommended threshold.
What I understand them to be describing here is that the differences in blood lead levels between the two groups have met an accepted statistical standard which is taken to mean that the difference observed is unlikely to have occurred by chance - i.e. there is a statistically-significant difference.
They have identified in the previous paragraph to the one I've quoted that there are (to my eye, at least) important potential factors which they have not taken into account - which might make one take a view on the actual significance of this statistically-significant difference.
The main thing, though, is the second bit I've put in bold - where they point out that this statistically-significant difference is in fact very small (rather than 'markedly higher' in game-eaters) - and therefore is of questionable actual significance.
Last edited:
