Latest article on lead micro and nano particles in deer and grouse

[Dunwaters]

No, I'm not having a laugh at all. I don’t think you quite realise what you’re doing.

There is something incorrect about you making incorrect claims about the health issues.

I don't deny any risk. I understand them and you evidently neither understand them or accept what they are.
You see some fool spouting about "no known safe level" and presume that means eating lead-shot game is dangerous. Unless one is determinedly stupid in the preparation and cooking of it, it isn't. The risks from eating lead-shot game are of the same order, and arguably lower than the risk of breathing air. There is no known safe level of air pollution. I presume you don't have any qualms about breathing?

It is your right to turn your face away from the facts.

What way? I note that you haven’t found anything I’ve said on this thread to be demonstrably incorrect.

Scientific degree, qualified and 20 plus years experience using rifles - and my comments on the topic are restricted to the absolute basics (e.g. a D grade GCSE student is capable of understanding) which are universally accepted to be factual. What is your experience and expertise to opine on whether I’m being unreasonable on topics which you apparently know considerably less about?

I was wrong about you being a teacher, you’re a lawyer/barrister.

No school would tolerate your constant misrepresentations and your tactic of concentrating on fragments of arguments taken out of context.

 

[Apthorpe]

I was wrong about you being a teacher, you’re a lawyer/barrister.

Don't worry, it's not the only thing. And you're still wrong, as is your wont.

No school would tolerate your constant misrepresentations and your tactic of concentrating on fragments of arguments taken out of context.

I made no misrepresentation nor took anything out of context. You're just trolling.

 

[CAVHUNT]

Hi Smelly. Target shooting with archery gear is still OK in SA but not so the hunting aspect. It was done because of animal welfare concerns. That arrows are not instant/quick killers and often just wound the animal which gets out of Dodge as fast as it can and is never seen again only to die a slow death with an arrow still in it. Arrowed and still alive animals/birds appear in daily newspapers and on the TV news every now again with the wounded animal being caught and taken off to the vet. I recall some of those arrowed and still alive...a couple of kangaroos, a domestic cat and a couple of ducks and I think a Swan. The RSPCA was a big promoter of the ban to the South Australian Government which listened to them. A man got arrowed in his back yard. The kid next door was target shooting and missed so the arrow went through the wooden paling fence and got him. He survived.

 

[Buchan]

You acknowledge the fact lead levels are higher in game eaters in your statement………well unless these game eaters are dead then I would say there has to be a tolerance and so the ‘No safe level’ is a typical lefty wokey anti shooting extreme scare message to influence.

The "no safe level" relates to the impact of lead as a long-term problem. There are lots of reports of illness in people associated with lead exposure, including ingestion of metallic lead. I will absolutely recognise that there are very few cases of death from lead (although just seen a curious one of fatality from an embedded lead bullet) but there are plenty of cases of illness.

 

[Chris Richardson]

You really are having a laugh, there is nothing incorrect about pointing out the health issues associated with lead.

If you want to eat lead and accept the risks then it is no one's business but your own, but to deny the risks is frankly stupid.

As much as i disagree with many things you post, you have never previously struck me that way before.

What is you experience and expertise to give advice on ballistic matters?

In the firs instance i will shoot for myself and family, so not necessarily an issue whether i use lead of copper ammo (apparently my stalking friend tells me copper is preferred exclusively by the local game dealer/s).

I enclose the above quote from you 12 months ago ….. what’s changed in the last 12 months with lead to make you feel so strongly ?

 

[Apthorpe]

The "no safe level" relates to the impact of lead as a long-term problem.

That's not really an accurate statement. It's important to remain close to what the definition is and what that actually means. Both air and alcohol are also generally accepted to have no known safe level of exposure, and there is no legislative move to prohibit those.
Everyone knows that lead is toxic, but ammunition is a very minor source of exposure to humans and there are many greater sources of exposure to lead, and thousands of other greater or equal risks from other substances, which are not subject to prior or simultaneous moves to ban them. Thus the inescapable conclusion is that risk to human health is not a sufficient explanation for banning lead ammunition.
I would be grateful if you'd challenge any aspect where you think I'm wrong of misleading anyone.

There are lots of reports of illness in people associated with lead exposure, including ingestion of metallic lead.

But not of permanent harm from eating game. The fact that people have been poisoned by lead paint, organolead compounds, working in lead smelters etc. is essentially misinformation to the topic at hand.

I will absolutely recognise that there are very few cases of death from lead (although just seen a curious one of fatality from an embedded lead bullet) but there are plenty of cases of illness.

 

[Buchan]

I'm afraid I really have to pick you up on this very silly claim. You certainly know better than this. Lead ammunition is not made with different isotopes - that's a ridiculous thing to say. Wjicj isotopes/how/why? The point you are addressing/missing from Tulloch's comment is that metallic lead is very much less toxic than lead compounds where the lead is ionic or organolead compounds like tetraethyl lead. The chemical properties are very different. For the sake of anyone who didn't have a scientific education, could you reflect on this and confirm what is correct?

Not silly at all, isotope analysis is often used to compare sources of lead. But you are correct, I had misread Tulloch's comment, probably as I'd just read a paper discussing lead isotope analysis.
You are right, lead from metallic sources is absorbed less than other sources, one paper suggesting about a 14 x difference between metallic lead and lead carbonate. However, the damage that lead does to enzyme pathways, DNA and all the other problems it causes is due to the lead as an ionic form being directly taken up by the cells. The source, be it metallic lead in the gut or tetraethyl doesn't affect this.

 

[Apthorpe]

But you are correct, I had misread Tulloch's comment, probably as I'd just read a paper discussing lead isotope analysis.
You are right, lead from metallic sources is absorbed less than other sources, one paper suggesting about a 14 x difference between metallic lead and lead carbonate. However, the damage that lead does to enzyme pathways, DNA and all the other problems it causes is due to the lead as an ionic form being directly taken up by the cells. The source, be it metallic lead in the gut or tetraethyl doesn't affect this.

I'm afraid I have to pick you up on this again. Organolead compounds are different in the way they are taken up and act biologically, including but not restricted to the types of tissues they migrate into. I don't know whether you have a figure for the uptake of organolead compunds, but I believe it is very much higher again than the inorganic compounds such as lead carbonate. Is this not the case?
Also inhalation of lead compounds is very much more toxic than ingestion of metallic lead.

Overall, the source is enormously important, in respect of its bioavailability, the routes and quantities of exposure and the ease of avoiding exposure. Again, I encourage you to highlight any error I may have made.

 

[Buchan]

I'm afraid I have to pick you up on this again. Organolead compounds are different in the way they are taken up and act biologically, including but not restricted to the types of tissues they migrate into. I don't know whether you have a figure for the uptake of organolead compunds, but I believe it is very much higher again than the inorganic compounds such as lead carbonate. Is this not the case?
Also inhalation of lead compounds is very much more toxic than ingestion of metallic lead.

Overall, the source is enormously important, in respect of its bioavailability, the routes and quantities of exposure and the ease of avoiding exposure. Again, I encourage you to highlight any error I may have made.

Absolutely, bioavailabilty is important. Compounds of lead will be absorbed in greater quantities than the metallic form, and I'm guessing that an organic molecule with lead attached, will be absorbed more readily than an inorganic one (for non-chemists (me) most organic (carbon based) molecules dissolve easily in fat (nylon etc being an exception!).
The organolead compounds will also (I am assuming) be more easily distributed around the body. But, the actual lead atom, in an ionic form, is taken up by specific cell receptors, ones that normally move iron etc into an out of the cell.
It's the lead, the Pb, that gets stuck into the enzymes and causes problems.

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

This is getting all vey boring now same too and fro anyway onto a match Brighter note tomorrow I’m off to Essex to **** some fallow with some lead #fallow-jihad

 

[Apthorpe]

Absolutely, bioavailabilty is important. Compounds of lead will be absorbed in greater quantities than the metallic form, and I'm guessing that an organic molecule with lead attached, will be absorbed more readily than an inorganic one (for non-chemists (me) most organic (carbon based) molecules dissolve easily in fat (nylon etc being an exception!).
The organolead compounds will also (I am assuming) be more easily distributed around the body. But, the actual lead atom, in an ionic form, is taken up by specific cell receptors, ones that normally move iron etc into an out of the cell.
It's the lead, the Pb, that gets stuck into the enzymes and causes problems.

I hesitate to go much further on this, being perhaps beyond the scope of some readers, but there are other differences which you may not have appreciated. Organolead compounds are (I think nearly, all) tetravalent, rather than the divalent inorganic ionic form you're focussing on, and are therefore chemically different. They further tend to be highly lipophilic making them much more easily able to cross membranes such as the blood-brain barrier, and they tend to have much weaker bond energies, making them more reactive, and therefore more toxic.

In lay terms, lead ammunition being metallic is at the lower end of spectrum of toxicity related to lead, lead compounds like found in paint are very much more toxic; lead compounds inhaled are very much more toxic than those, and organolead compounds such as found in leaded petrol further orders of magnitude more toxic. What pro-lead ban supporters have been doing is to ignore this spectrum. If the substance in question was nitro powder, the analogous argument would be that ammunition is dangerous because firing a single rifle cartridge is so explosive as to destroy half a street. They fail to understand the science.

 

[Hook'N'Bullet]

No reply how odd

so still wont answer how you can make the comparison of the effectiveness of copper vs lead ? still wont answer if youve eaten lead shot game or why a year ago you were happy to feed it to your family ? thought not thank you

I think not answering makes it worse

 

[Buchan]

I hesitate to go much further on this, being perhaps beyond the scope of some readers, but there are other differences which you may not have appreciated. Organolead compounds are (I think nearly, all) tetravalent, rather than the divalent inorganic ionic form you're focussing on, and are therefore chemically different. They further tend to be highly lipophilic making them much more easily able to cross membranes such as the blood-brain barrier, and they tend to have much weaker bond energies, making them more reactive, and therefore more toxic.

In lay terms, lead ammunition being metallic is at the lower end of spectrum of toxicity related to lead, lead compounds like found in paint are very much more toxic; lead compounds inhaled are very much more toxic than those, and organolead compounds such as found in leaded petrol further orders of magnitude more toxic. What pro-lead ban supporters have been doing is to ignore this spectrum. If the substance in question was nitro powder, the analogous argument would be that ammunition is dangerous because firing a single rifle cartridge is so explosive as to destroy half a street. They fail to understand the science.

I think you've explained that quite well.
From everything I have read, and from my understanding of biochemistry, lead is a problem even at very low blood levels. Ammunition in food (tiny fragments as we know from the paper that started this discussion) is a route into the body to provide those low levels. Other sources probably do provide higher levels, but most of them are being phased out.

 

[Chris Richardson]

@GlennUK no reply as to how you were happy to feed your family lead a year ago yet now that notion is abhorrent to you ?

 

[Spear Chucker]

I shouldn't be at all surprised.

I am only half joking. There is more experience and factual knowledge expressed in favour of personal choice or keeping lead in this thread alone, than the goons at Marford Mill have analysed in the last 10 years. Half of the evidence these dolts have used is some cuckoo study commissioned by RSPB.
It will be interesting to see what Reform make of the science. We need to find out who is handling the brief there.

 

[Spear Chucker]

I'm afraid I have to pick you up on this again. Organolead compounds are different in the way they are taken up and act biologically, including but not restricted to the types of tissues they migrate into. I don't know whether you have a figure for the uptake of organolead compunds, but I believe it is very much higher again than the inorganic compounds such as lead carbonate. Is this not the case?
Also inhalation of lead compounds is very much more toxic than ingestion of metallic lead.

Overall, the source is enormously important, in respect of its bioavailability, the routes and quantities of exposure and the ease of avoiding exposure. Again, I encourage you to highlight any error I may have made.

Most of the studies used by the dolts who sold us out clearly state in their summary that no account was taken of background or other forms of naturally occurring sources of lead. Rather bu**ers the validity of their findings..but what would I know?

 

[jimmer.13]

I am only half joking. There is more experience and factual knowledge expressed in favour of personal choice or keeping lead in this thread alone, than the goons at Marford Mill have analysed in the last 10 years. Half of the evidence these dolts have used is some cuckoo study commissioned by RSPB.
It will be interesting to see what Reform make of the science. We need to find out who is handling the brief there.

Out picking up today and this sentiment was echoed by all the guns and the entirety of the group.
All had unsubscribed to BASC.
This has been echoed all summer on the simulated clay days.
There was positive discussion on how the impending lead ban could be legally challenged.
Genuine countrymen can maybe live in hope.

 

[Chris Richardson]

Out picking up today and this sentiment was echoed by all the guns and the entirety of the group.
All had unsubscribed to BASC.
This has been echoed all summer on the simulated clay days.
There was positive discussion on how the impending lead ban could be legally challenged.
Genuine countrymen can maybe live in hope.

Sounds fantastic people are voting with their feet I’ve managed to convince all the guns on my syndicate to leave basc too , voting with your wallet is the way forward

 

[Heym SR20]

FFS this thread really shows up that we have a really nasty completely narrow minded bunch of bullies. I would hope that eventually the police when reviewing social media as part of licensing checks will take a dim view on their constant impetuous behaviour.

The Stalking Directory is up for sale as the administrator’s are dealing with bigger issues than a bunch of school boy bullies constantly trolling threads. You know who you are and you should hang your heads in shame.

But I very much doubt you will, because you that type of person.

I will ask @admin to close this thread forthwith because I have had enough of your direct abuse.

 

[palmer_mike]

Discussion didn’t go the way you wanted so you
want to get the thread shut down?