Why would you do this if the lead is doing no harm?
According to your frequently repeated opinion, there isn’t a scintilla of proof, or a single definitive scientific study which you accept, proving that lead in ammunition causes any harm when consumed by human or animal.
Why avoid it if it does no harm.
A) you're misrepresenting my opinion. I know what my opinion is better than you do. My opinion has always been that eating game shot with lead ammunition isn't harmful - because that's what the evidence has proven - subject to the proviso that you're not a total idiot.
B) The reason for avoiding it is good sense. You.may find that incomprehensible.
Really? The evidence would suggest otherwise.
View attachment 474945View attachment 474946View attachment 474947View attachment 474948
There’s plenty more where these came from.
I'm sure there is plenty more of that, but it isn't evidence. It's red herrings. Take the first photo. when was the last time you ate a deer's head?
That's just silliness. None of this evidence is showing anything that is actually at the stage of being food.
Im allergic to hot dogs, I don’t eat lips or assholes.
You’re preaching to the converted there, but I’m not the one consistently arguing that both lead shot and lead bullets are inconsequential and have no negative impacts.
.....if you have half an ounce of common sense. If you have no sense whatsoever, and I won't dispute your insistence that you don't, then you can harm yourself - although you'd be much more likely to kill yourself eating other foods first. Equally, you ought also to be waiting for help before crossing the road.
I’m not the one discounting the scientific evidence that it does,
There is no scientific evidence that it does. There is a colossal mass of evidence that it does no harm or has positive effects. There is a lot of inapplicable, methodologically defective, biased, paid for or just plain dishonest material masquerading as scientific evidence..
because every single study over the last century fails to meet your personal standards of proof or scientific rigour.
The thing about science is that you can't just publish any old rubbish and expect that to be considered authoritative fact. It isn't. There are standards which things have to meet to be valid. All I have done is to point out that some studies published quite clearly do not meet minimal generally accepted standards for validity. For example, studies based on invalid sample selections - e.g. a widely promoted study during covid about wildfowl being shot with lead shot was entirely based on a grossly inapplicable sampling methodology and invalidly small sample size which rendered the whole exercise statistically unacceptable, by anybody's standard. The authors then made a wholly unsupportable (scientifically and mathematically) extrapolation to extend findings from a tiny, non-random sample to claim national population-wide conclusions. Anyone presenting claims like that at even school-level maths or science classes would deservedly be heavily criticised.
Bad "science" is not fact.
You’ve fatally holed your own argument below the waterline by admitting that you wouldn’t eat it yourself, why not?
Nonsense. My argument that the meat is fit to eat is entirely unaffected by whether or not I eat the trimmings. Claiming it is "fatally.holed" is wildly and delusionally hyperbolic As well as plain wrong.
I have to admit to suspecting this is all deliberately crass nonsense you're posting here.
If it’s good enough to throw to scavengers with a proven history of injurious effects,
I don't know about that, there is no proven history of injurious effects where I am, being somewhat outside the habitat range of condors amd vultures.
why isn’t it good enough for you or your dogs?0
Defective premise, defective question. I don't throw butchery scraps to scavengers, I put it in the bin. Do you eat the contents of your bin? Does the fact that you don't necessarily mean that your diet is dangerous?
How can you make such a silly argument?
