HSE Lead restriction extension

[Conor O'Gorman]

As always the devil is in the detail, zeroing and practice ranges may only have a natural earth bank as a backstop, ok it would not be a hardship for a sand bank to be put in place, but such a range also allows airgun pellets to be distributed all over the area, so what’s the logic in recovering a relatively small tonnage of .22lr lead projectiles yet allow considerable more airgun pellets to lay where fallen on the ground?

That is hopefully the kind of feedback the HSE will have received in its 2023 consultation. The feedback and evidence HSE received on its 2022 consultation is what resulted in the proposed ban on airgun pellets to be dropped (target and live quarry). We await the outcome of the 2023 consultation - due this autumn.

 

[Nickb]

Thanks, I may come back to you with my thoughts on some of these queries and assertions. I thought perhaps best to start with lead shot ingestion as a cause of death in birds due to the lead shot being eroded in the gizzard, after which toxic lead salts are absorbed into blood and later deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones etc. There are are various documented experiments that have looked into this that seem conclusive to me that the lead shot is a direct source of poisoning. Here is one on mallard.

Acute effects of lead, steel, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer shot administered to game-farm mallards

Acute effects of lead, steel, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer shot administered to game-farm mallards - PubMed

Sixteen-bird groups (sexes equal) of adult mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were orally dosed with eight #4 steel short, eight #4 lead shot, eight BB-size tungsten-iron shot, eight BB-size tungsten-polymer shot, or were sham-dosed and maintained for 30 days (16 January 1996 to 15 February 1996)...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This is an artificial experiment, it bears no resemblance to wild mallard.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

This is an artificial experiment, it bears no resemblance to wild mallard.

Correct. It is an experiment to look at lead shot erosion and absorption by mallard. The assertion made by Spear Chucker is that "lead from shot is not metabolised by humans, waterfowl or any other species following ingestion".

 

[Dunwaters]

This is an artificial experiment, it bears no resemblance to wild mallard.

The article confirms by controlled experimentation that ingested lead shot is absorbed into the bloodstream, bones and organs of mallards and is toxic in a relatively short period.
Mallard and other dabbling ducks are known to sieve out and consume lead shot in the wild. So do wild partridge and pheasant chicks.
We’ve known this for 80 years, there are multiple studies from both sides of the Atlantic all showing similar results, but there are still those amongst us within the shooting community who don’t believe that it happens at all or who believe that all the studies are all wrong and that it doesn’t happen in their location.
There are constant howls demanding evidence of the deleterious effects of lead, yet every single one of the multitude of studies available which back up the claims that lead is harmful is rubbished.
So here’s my challenge, rather than pick fault with each and every single study presented, consider that regardless of the possible shortcomings of any individual research, there isn’t a single dissenting paper.
They all come to the same conclusion. There isn’t a single paper to support the argument that lead is harmless or has no effect.
The overwhelming evidence is that lead shot is toxic to wildlife, if you want to convince me otherwise, show me YOUR evidence that it isn’t.
I don’t want to hear a single word about lead flashing or water pipes or any of the myriad of other non issues and irrelevancies that are perpetually dragged out, just show me your evidence that lead shot is not harmful when ingested by wildlife.

 

[Nickb]

Where are all these dead wild fowl that have ingested lead ?

 

[Spear Chucker]

The article confirms by controlled experimentation that ingested lead shot is absorbed into the bloodstream, bones and organs of mallards and is toxic in a relatively short period.
Mallard and other dabbling ducks are known to sieve out and consume lead shot in the wild. So do wild partridge and pheasant chicks.
We’ve known this for 80 years, there are multiple studies from both sides of the Atlantic all showing similar results, but there are still those amongst us within the shooting community who don’t believe that it happens at all or who believe that all the studies are all wrong and that it doesn’t happen in their location.
There are constant howls demanding evidence of the deleterious effects of lead, yet every single one of the multitude of studies available which back up the claims that lead is harmful is rubbished.
So here’s my challenge, rather than pick fault with each and every single study presented, consider that regardless of the possible shortcomings of any individual research, there isn’t a single dissenting paper.
They all come to the same conclusion. There isn’t a single paper to support the argument that lead is harmless or has no effect.
The overwhelming evidence is that lead shot is toxic to wildlife, if you want to convince me otherwise, show me YOUR evidence that it isn’t.
I don’t want to hear a single word about lead flashing or water pipes or any of the myriad of other non issues and irrelevancies that are perpetually dragged out, just show me your evidence that lead shot is not harmful when ingested by wildlife.

This was a small scale, clinically unproven test executed in artificial conditions with unwashed (not de-contaminated) shot and no placebo element to the study. There was no testing of lead content of feed the subjects were given before during or after the examination period and no examination of the environmental conditions the birds were kept in or subjected to. There was no pathway to demonstrate the route to the apparent findings and again, no use of Isotopic spectrometry to confirm the source of lead apparently held to be the cause of death. There are similar studies with relatable test results conducted elsewhere and in similarly scientifically "shaky" conditions.

Try this...https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32050362/ Would this be dissenting enough? We can ping contrasting links back and forth all month if you like. At least in this case Binkowski, the author of this paper, having determined that there was no clear proof that Mute Swans in the Baltic were poisoned by lead shot left the door open to the possibility that it may be the cause. At least he is scientifically objective. Another study shows Eider duck populations in the Baltic plummeting because of lead contamination. As Eiders mainly inhabit rocky coastlines feeding on shellfish -which are filter feeders and store accumulations of lead compounds (not shot)- one must ask where on a rocky bottom, eiders are expected to pick up sufficient spent shot to cause them harm?

The plain inescapable fact is that the "science" used by WWT, GCWT BASC et al is not complete, nor is it rigorous. The WWT admitted to Mark Crudginton that they had no intention of using LIS to back their claims. They apparently felt it was a waste of their "charitable time". This was in response to him actually offering to fund a full examination for them to commission! What are they afraid of?

The driving force behind BASC's collaboration in the likely ban on lead shot is purely political and supported by wonky pseudo science. It is as plain as day and we can wring our hands collectively about the various fallacies being promulgated as incontrovertible fact all day long. The fact is there is no clear scientific basis for a ban and the shooting organisations have no business capitulating.

 

[Spear Chucker]

Thanks, I may come back to you with my thoughts on some of these queries and assertions. I thought perhaps best to start with lead shot ingestion as a cause of death in birds due to the lead shot being eroded in the gizzard, after which toxic lead salts are absorbed into blood and later deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones etc. There are are various documented experiments that have looked into this that seem conclusive to me that the lead shot is a direct source of poisoning. Here is one on mallard.

Acute effects of lead, steel, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer shot administered to game-farm mallards

Acute effects of lead, steel, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer shot administered to game-farm mallards - PubMed

Sixteen-bird groups (sexes equal) of adult mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were orally dosed with eight #4 steel short, eight #4 lead shot, eight BB-size tungsten-iron shot, eight BB-size tungsten-polymer shot, or were sham-dosed and maintained for 30 days (16 January 1996 to 15 February 1996)...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Apologies for the brevity Conor, the day job is interfering with my discussions with you. Please see my response to "Dunwater".

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

This was a small scale, clinically unproven test executed in artificial conditions with unwashed (not de-contaminated) shot and no placebo element to the study. There was no testing of lead content of feed the subjects were given before during or after the examination period and no examination of the environmental conditions the birds were kept in or subjected to.

Thanks. A bit of a coincidence perhaps that it was the ducks that ingested lead shot that were dying etc. How about this one then?

Pathogenesis of lead shot poisoning in the mallard duck

Pathogenesis of lead shot poisoning in the mallard duck - PubMed

Adult mallard ducks were administered steel pellets to determine the rate of excretion from the gastrointestinal tract. In separate studies the ducks were administered 5 number 6 lead pellets. Birds were examined for clinical signs and sacrificed at given intervals over a 20 day period to assess...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Where are all these dead wild fowl that have ingested lead ?

GWCT advise that birds that die of lead poisoning remain largely invisible because usually sick birds die a few at a time (but there are well documented mass poisoning events), may hide themselves away and are more vulnerable to predation (so their dead body may look like a predator kill). The body may also be scavenged or lie in an inaccessible location.

WWT advise that lead poisoning is an ‘invisible killer’ because in the wild lead poisoned birds are usually scattered and hard to find, and readily eaten by predators and scavengers. A WWT video is below:

 

[Nickb]

GWCT advise that birds that die of lead poisoning remain largely invisible because usually sick birds die a few at a time (but there are well documented mass poisoning events), may hide themselves away and are more vulnerable to predation (so their dead body may look like a predator kill). The body may also be scavenged or lie in an inaccessible location.

WWT advise that lead poisoning is an ‘invisible killer’ because in the wild lead poisoned birds are usually scattered and hard to find, and readily eaten by predators and scavengers. A WWT video is below:

How convenient

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

How convenient

I don't understand. Do you not trust GWCT advice?

 

[JTO]

My uncle had a stroke when he was 70 years old. He had an X-ray and was asked about something that was showing up just behind one of his ears. It was a lead airgun pellet that had been there since my mother had shot him when he was about10.

 

[homer]

GWCT advise that birds that die of lead poisoning remain largely invisible because usually sick birds die a few at a time (but there are well documented mass poisoning events), may hide themselves away and are more vulnerable to predation (so their dead body may look like a predator kill). The body may also be scavenged or lie in an inaccessible location.

WWT advise that lead poisoning is an ‘invisible killer’ because in the wild lead poisoned birds are usually scattered and hard to find, and readily eaten by predators and scavengers. A WWT video is below:

So if they're really hard to find and largely invisible, how do they know what numbers are dying?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

My uncle had a stroke when he was 70 years old. He had an X-ray and was asked about something that was showing up just behind one of his ears. It was a lead airgun pellet that had been there since my mother had shot him when he was about10.

Sorry to hear about your uncle. Could you explain what that lead airgun pellet behind his ear has to do with birds ingesting lead shot?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

So if they're really hard to find and largely invisible, how do they know what numbers are dying?

There are evidence based estimates based on modelling. Just as there are evidence based estimates on the positive impact of shooting for environment, society and economy.

 

[JTO]

Sorry to hear about your uncle. Could you explain what that lead airgun pellet behind his ear has to do with birds ingesting lead shot?

About the same as lead flashng on roofs.

 

[NullMac]

So here’s my challenge, rather than pick fault with each and every single study presented, consider that regardless of the possible shortcomings of any individual research, there isn’t a single dissenting paper.

Well Wiley the scientific publisher has had to close 19 scientific journals and retract 11,300 papers in the last two years as they appear "corrupted". Many other journals have had to pull hundreds of other papers.

Scientific fraud is a wide spread problem. Partly corrupted by the funders, partly by career ambitions.

Many climate scientist openly admit to omitting views which are not wholly in line with the standard dialogue on the subject as they know their papers will not be accepted by the journals (and thus impacting their careers) and will be disputed during peer review ie group think. How many dissenting papers are there on climate change? What none for such a hugely complex subject with multiple possible contributors in addition to the effects of humans? Group think lives.

So I am afraid your lack of a dissenting papers does not prove your point but raises more questions. Further this is a highly contentious area which would suggest a strong possibility of giving the funders what they want and/or group think. Maybe not, but this is the world we live in.

Science is blatantly not scientific anymore.

There are a number of scientists who hunt down bad science and a website that tracks all the crap that has had to be pulled Retraction Watch. Its a huge problem

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

About the same as lead flashng on roofs.

Whataboutery?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Well Wiley the scientific publisher has had to close 19 scientific journals and retract 11,300 papers in the last two years as they appear "corrupted". Many other journals have had to pull hundreds of other papers.

Scientific fraud is a wide spread problem. Partly corrupted by the funders, partly by career ambitions.

Many climate scientist openly admit to omitting views which are not wholly in line with the standard dialogue on the subject as they know their papers will not be accepted by the journals (and thus impacting their careers) and will be disputed during peer review ie group think. How many dissenting papers are there on climate change? What none for such a hugely complex subject with multiple possible contributors in addition to the effects of humans? Group think lives.

So I am afraid your lack of a dissenting papers does not prove your point but raises more questions. Further this is a highly contentious area which would suggest a strong possibility of giving the funders what they want and/or group think. Maybe not, but this is the world we live in.

Science is blatantly not scientific anymore.

I think you have a valid point for the post-truth era but are you saying that has been the case since 1870s as regards evidence of the impact of lead shot on birds mistakenly eating it as grit?

https://wildfowl.wwt.org.uk/index.php/wildfowl/article/download/116/116

 

[Nickb]

So if they're really hard to find and largely invisible, how do they know what numbers are dying?

Exactly