Lead ingestion health risks

[HandgunHTR]

@HandgunHTR
Welcome to finally having a somewhat half baked argument

12 pages into this thread and a number of comments by you to this point all with you not reading the studies. So were all the other comments False musings and discontent or were you just parroting someone else’s comments?

Then to make what you think are good points, add a misinterpreted line or two from a study, and pass it off as your own epiphany. Plagiarism is something you do well. Did you have any original thoughts to share?

Lead is lead. It’s one element. Pb. Whether it comes from a rifle bullet or shot. One bird or another. A moose or a pink floating unicorn. That it transmits from animals to humans in any amount is clear and inarguable Period dot. End of story.

Did it dawn on you that the reason we are even talking about it rather than believing “it doesn’t exist” as someone stated, is because the studies exist. You could not misinterpret the data if it was non existent. Do you understand what exposure means?

Then you wanna bow out as if your thoughts are so astute that they cannot be refuted. How “blue state” of you

Keep to opinions. your ability to read and interpret data and get someone to “admit” something that you poorly argue or incorrectly understand with any kind of non bias approach or personal vendetta is not your strong point

Dude, you can't even make a coherent argument.

I have read all of those studies and it is clear from your comments that I also understand them quite better than you do.

Anytime you wish to post up your bone fides regarding your ability to understand 1) scientific studies, 2) chemistry, 3) statistics, I am all ears, but it is obvious (at least to me) that you rely way too much on what the internet tells you rather than your own critical thinking and that leads me to believe that you don't have a strong background in any of those areas. But feel free to prove me wrong.

As to some of your points

1. "Having not read the studies" - At what point did I ever give you the impression that I haven't read the studies? The reason that I asked the questions that I asked was to gauge if you had read the studies so that I could determine if you were just parroting what the internet told you or if you had actually read them and done some critical thinking. It quickly became obvious to me which one it was.
2. Lead is lead - True, but bioavailable lead alloys are completely different "regular" lead when it comes to 1) the rate of transfer to the blood stream and 2) the affects it has on the various organs within the human body.
3. I am choosing to bow out because I have clearly stated my points, your ability to understand them not withstanding. It has become abundantly clear to me who is in this discussion to actually learn something and who is here trying to look smart while not doing a good job of it.
4. This is the 3rd or 4th different argument now where you have resorted to trying to label someone as "blue state", or "lefty", or pick your liberal derogation. When you have to resort to insults, you have already lost.
5. As far as your last little dig. You actually got me to LOL. I am not the one who is "incorrectly understanding" anything, on any of the points that you are arguing on this Forum. This is a classic pot-kettle comment.

 

[RockAndSage]

You are missing some critical issues in this discussion. This is not intended to be “fire”. I am just trying to explain some of the complexities of the issue.

The discussion is about the risks of eating lead fragments in big game. Waterfowl and other birds are a whole different issue. There is evidence of inflated BLL in waterfowl, raptors and corvids, but the sources of that lead are not always clear. If you do a search for heavy metals in marine mammals you’ll find a pile of papers that document levels of lead and mercury that are thought to come from industrial pollution. That pollution comes in chemical forms that are much more bioavailable than metallic lead. Your Greenland bird eaters are also eating marine mammals and the birds are eating the same stuff as the marine mammals. There is no evidence that the marine mammals are getting inflated BLL from eating metallic lead from ammunition. The paper just references a correlation. The birds are getting killed with lead shot and people who eat more bird have higher BLL. It ignores the other factors and doesn’t examine what the actual source of the lead in the hunters blood is.

Your comment “lead is lead” also ignores a lot of chemistry and biology. Lead oxide, lead acetate and other forms are much more toxic than metallic lead because they are in forms that are soluble and easier to absorb by most living creatures. Metallic lead has to be converted by the body to form that is soluble. That process is inefficient, so much of that metallic lead passes through without being uptaken by the body.

In addition, not all animals deal with metallic lead the same. Birds are more succeptible to it because many have gizzards that physically grind the metallic lead into smaller particles. Smaller particles mean more surface area for reaction. Raptors, vultures and corvids have much more acidic digestive systems to dissolve bones. That lower PH also increases the potential for uptake of metallic lead. These are all reasons why lead shot is regulated for waterfowl and in waterfowl management areas.

All of the papers that I’ve seen on the risks of lead from ammunition ignore the other sources of potential lead contamination from industrial sources and bioaccumulation of industrial lead in the environment. They look solely at the correlation of the presence of metallic lead in meat and the BLL of people eating it. The initial paper cited in this discussion is one of the few that actually asks what the potential impact of eating meat with those levels of lead might be and it largely dismisses it as a potential health risk.

I want to be clear, that I am not arguing that metallic lead is great for us and we should all eat some. The point is that lead is out there in the environment and that metallic lead in game meat is a relatively low risk that can be mitigated. The highest lead and mercury levels I have ever heard of in a person were from an Ojibway fellow I used to work with who used to love to eat big pike and catfish. That is a documented risk for lead and mercury exposure and there are recommended levels of consumption to mitigate those risks, particularly for pregnant women.

So in closing, the lead issue is complicated. There are lots of sources for lead in the environment and they vary in terms of risk. There are lots of things I worry about in this day and age. Lead in game meat is one I used to worry about but don’t anymore. I avoid shooting the big muscle groups as much as possible. I butcher my own animals and trim and discard the meat in the vicinity of the wound channel. And I don’t worry about my family eating that meat.

This is perhaps the most salient set of issues I've seen written on what concerns me specifically about the "science" involved in the lead debate regarding hunting. Unless each of these issues are accounted for, it is just not possible to use "science" in a valid way as justification for a ban on lead-based ammunition.

 

[ElPollo]

This is perhaps the most salient set of issues I've seen written on what concerns me specifically about the "science" involved in the lead debate regarding hunting. Unless each of these issues are accounted for, it is just not possible to use "science" in a valid way as justification for a ban on lead-based ammunition.

It’s important to remember that “science”is a bunch of individuals. There isn’t any single oversight board. There are no annual discussions of what the goals are or what the political stance is on anything. It’s a bunch of nerds working independently who get feedback from their peers on their work at fairly long intervals. Science is also based on assumptions. And as “they” say, all assumptions are wrong. They are a placeholder until you get more information. The take home is that it’s not about whether you can trust science. Science is always something that requires scrutiny and interpretation. Most scientists would much rather tell you what they don’t know than what they do know. Science is also iterative and slow. But if there is a group you should be untrustworthy of, its the advocates and the policy makers.

 

[Hoopleheader]

This is perhaps the most salient set of issues I've seen written on what concerns me specifically about the "science" involved in the lead debate regarding hunting. Unless each of these issues are accounted for, it is just not possible to use "science" in a valid way as justification for a ban on lead-based ammunition.

I don’t think anyone here has suggested bans on lead bullets for big game hunting basis human health risks (I’m also not aware of serious discussions for doing so at regulatory level, but could be wrong).

The discussion is more geared around should you or your family as a consumer of game meat shot with lead be concerned about the lead exposure for human health (physical effects, cognitive development etc).

Even though I have a different take on how to proceed due to the lack of solid data and research on this topic and large negative potential consequences to my children’s cognitive development if I were wrong, I believe Elpollo has done the best job of laying out what is known, unknown, and uncertain and come to a logical conclusion with a risk/reward framework that works for him and his family.

 

[JGRaider]

Just curious, is this the same "science" that brought us the covid vaccine scam, man made global warming, and evolutionist/big bang belief?

 

[Trial153]

This science is way sounder.
And on the 5th day god made lead, and he said sprinkle it onto your food and go forth and propagate the earth.

 

[Article 4]

Dude, you can't even make a coherent argument.

I have read all of those studies and it is clear from your comments that I also understand them quite better than you do.

Anytime you wish to post up your bone fides regarding your ability to understand 1) scientific studies, 2) chemistry, 3) statistics, I am all ears, but it is obvious (at least to me) that you rely way too much on what the internet tells you rather than your own critical thinking and that leads me to believe that you don't have a strong background in any of those areas. But feel free to prove me wrong.

As to some of your points

1. "Having not read the studies" - At what point did I ever give you the impression that I haven't read the studies? The reason that I asked the questions that I asked was to gauge if you had read the studies so that I could determine if you were just parroting what the internet told you or if you had actually read them and done some critical thinking. It quickly became obvious to me which one it was.
2. Lead is lead - True, but bioavailable lead alloys are completely different "regular" lead when it comes to 1) the rate of transfer to the blood stream and 2) the affects it has on the various organs within the human body.
3. I am choosing to bow out because I have clearly stated my points, your ability to understand them not withstanding. It has become abundantly clear to me who is in this discussion to actually learn something and who is here trying to look smart while not doing a good job of it.
4. This is the 3rd or 4th different argument now where you have resorted to trying to label someone as "blue state", or "lefty", or pick your liberal derogation. When you have to resort to insults, you have already lost.
5. As far as your last little dig. You actually got me to LOL. I am not the one who is "incorrectly understanding" anything, on any of the points that you are arguing on this Forum. This is a classic pot-kettle comment.

Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy

 

[Article 4]

Dude, you can't even make a coherent argument.

I have read all of those studies and it is clear from your comments that I also understand them quite better than you do.

Anytime you wish to post up your bone fides regarding your ability to understand 1) scientific studies, 2) chemistry, 3) statistics, I am all ears, but it is obvious (at least to me) that you rely way too much on what the internet tells you rather than your own critical thinking and that leads me to believe that you don't have a strong background in any of those areas. But feel free to prove me wrong.

As to some of your points

1. "Having not read the studies" - At what point did I ever give you the impression that I haven't read the studies? The reason that I asked the questions that I asked was to gauge if you had read the studies so that I could determine if you were just parroting what the internet told you or if you had actually read them and done some critical thinking. It quickly became obvious to me which one it was.
2. Lead is lead - True, but bioavailable lead alloys are completely different "regular" lead when it comes to 1) the rate of transfer to the blood stream and 2) the affects it has on the various organs within the human body.
3. I am choosing to bow out because I have clearly stated my points, your ability to understand them not withstanding. It has become abundantly clear to me who is in this discussion to actually learn something and who is here trying to look smart while not doing a good job of it.
4. This is the 3rd or 4th different argument now where you have resorted to trying to label someone as "blue state", or "lefty", or pick your liberal derogation. When you have to resort to insults, you have already lost.
5. As far as your last little dig. You actually got me to LOL. I am not the one who is "incorrectly understanding" anything, on any of the points that you are arguing on this Forum. This is a classic pot-kettle comment.

I will if you will:

After combat and living life as a 100% disabled veteran, I spent 21 years in healthcare working in Medical Education, working with clinicians seeing patients, and prescribing medicines and vaccines across 9 different therapeutic categories.

I was involved in supplying data for training doctors utilizing hundreds, if not thousands of studies. The same studies universities and Drs use to teach/learn about medicine and disease states.

I worked in 28 countries teaching their clinicians as well. I have 2 degrees in biology, 1 in business, and numerous certifications in Cardiovascular disease, Diabetes, Psoriatic Disease, Osteoporosis, Pediatric diseases like Chicken pox, Rubella, Rotavirus, HPV, Cervical Cancer, Kidney Disease, and Autoimmune disorders...which is why I am so adamant about the lead argument. Of course I look up things on the internet. Where do you get your data? You didn't post any here, just reacted to everyone else's.

Ill let you in on another piece of info. I had serious moral issues in about 2020. So much so that I left the healthcare industry that very year. Completely. The only thing I really miss is that we were really able to help some people. I mean, truly help them. I would like to think there are thousands of people out there living better for the work we did. Since then I have had 2 of my own businesses...and enjoying them very much.

• The 4 studies absolutely and without question found direct correlation. It is obvious by your answer you didn't read the fifth one either. You should. This has been shown ad nausea and for you to completely disregard it is an issue - so look at the attachment and read their conclusion now for the second time.

• The definition of bioavailability is: The ability of a substance to be absorbed by the body. Lead alloys weren't even brought up as a source in the studies. It was lead from shot and bullets. Plain ol' every day lead. In order for lead to show up in a blood assay, it has to be bioavailable. Since it shows up in blood DIRECTLY from eating lead in animals, that answers that

• No results on organs in the human body? So CKD is not an organ related issue (btw it was quoted in one of the studies). CKD = Chronic Kidney disease. Damage to the brain is not an issue? High blood pressure affect the heart and causes heart attacks. Childhood development issues. These all come from lead exposure.

• If the "Blue" mentality fits. Its not just you or me at times, its the culture of the site. There is an inherent "Mafia" here that argue without cause and enjoy being antagonistic, they circle like sharks and cancel anything that doesn't tow the "line" they believe in. They argue "small versus large" that bullet energy doesn't exist, that an entire brand of scope must suck because a few malfunctioned so you should never ever buy one. Then will do a review with 10 people in it and act as if that in itself proves that anything else is wrong and is irrefutable. But only if it fits the narrative.
  I agree with you however, resorting to insults is a bad argument.

• There is a direct correlation to the OP question and direct evidence of blood assay increases in BLL lead levels from hunting. That was not hard to comprehend, although I too would have liked some P- Value weighted conclusions, the 5th study provided that.

I find many people read right over documents and points - your responses lead me to believe you had done the same. I posted the studies. Of course I read them. In fact, I am one of the few people that actually provided more the wild opinion. No love for that though - do you think next time I should just say IMO and that would be better?

Some might even tell everyone they are an expert yet, haven’t even read anything or worked in any related field, they only want to come on at some point after the thread has been exhausted and provide their opinion. Some promote themselves as the expert in nearly every single topic and insult nearly everyone that refutes them. If they cannot comprehend it is possible, it MUST be false and cancelled.

I am actually enjoying living in other peoples heads rent free. To me, its just part of being on a public site. We take the good with the bad. I have thick skin...I am not worried.

 

[Article 4]

Dude, you can't even make a coherent argument.

I have read all of those studies and it is clear from your comments that I also understand them quite better than you do.

Anytime you wish to post up your bone fides regarding your ability to understand 1) scientific studies, 2) chemistry, 3) statistics, I am all ears, but it is obvious (at least to me) that you rely way too much on what the internet tells you rather than your own critical thinking and that leads me to believe that you don't have a strong background in any of those areas. But feel free to prove me wrong.

As to some of your points

1. "Having not read the studies" - At what point did I ever give you the impression that I haven't read the studies? The reason that I asked the questions that I asked was to gauge if you had read the studies so that I could determine if you were just parroting what the internet told you or if you had actually read them and done some critical thinking. It quickly became obvious to me which one it was.
2. Lead is lead - True, but bioavailable lead alloys are completely different "regular" lead when it comes to 1) the rate of transfer to the blood stream and 2) the affects it has on the various organs within the human body.
3. I am choosing to bow out because I have clearly stated my points, your ability to understand them not withstanding. It has become abundantly clear to me who is in this discussion to actually learn something and who is here trying to look smart while not doing a good job of it.
4. This is the 3rd or 4th different argument now where you have resorted to trying to label someone as "blue state", or "lefty", or pick your liberal derogation. When you have to resort to insults, you have already lost.
5. As far as your last little dig. You actually got me to LOL. I am not the one who is "incorrectly understanding" anything, on any of the points that you are arguing on this Forum. This is a classic pot-kettle comment.

Now to the fun stuff

I have hunted my entire life - bow, Rifle, Muzzle loader, harsh language too
Fished my entire life - fly and bait - some harsh language there from time to time
Reloaded for more than 20 years
Killed 128 big game animals on 3 continents
Believe in the designated hitter
Am sure that Owsald never acted alone
Have an issue with trucks and buy one about every 24 months
Think good bourbon is nearly a perfect beverage
Been published a dozen times in the outdoor world, not just some website, actually published
Am on a quest to purge nearly every processed food out of my life
Am the king of Ice Cream!
Used to date one of the girls from baywatch...probably aging myself but ok
Never married, no kids - not even a baby daddy either
Never took the COVID vaccine
I am afraid of crickets - hate em

Look you wanna bury the hatchet. I am in.
If not, we can agree to disagree. But Ill leave that up to you

 

[JGRaider]

Article 4, I mean this absolutely 100%......I sincerely thank you for your service to our country, and respect you for the sacrifices you made. As for all the medical/doctor stuff.....some are good and some arent', and after the covid fiasco I don't trust them or the CDC, WHO, etc near as much as I used to.

I can also see I very much agree with you on several topics you listed....no Covid jabs ever even though I have an autoimmune disease, hunting, fishing, trucks, and ice cream. I don't obsess over the food I eat, but try to do pretty good. We all have a date with death and I'm not afraid to meet my Maker, although I have lots of faults.

 

[Article 4]

I don’t think anyone here has suggested bans on lead bullets for big game hunting basis human health risks (I’m also not aware of serious discussions for doing so at regulatory level, but could be wrong).

The discussion is more geared around should you or your family as a consumer of game meat shot with lead be concerned about the lead exposure for human health (physical effects, cognitive development etc).

Even though I have a different take on how to proceed due to the lack of solid data and research on this topic and large negative potential consequences to my children’s cognitive development if I were wrong, I believe Elpollo has done the best job of laying out what is known, unknown, and uncertain and come to a logical conclusion with a risk/reward framework that works for him and his family.

i am certainly not promoting a ban on lead bullets. Used a big giant 500 grain lead bullet to shoot a Bison today...not worried about dying anytime soon.

 

[Article 4]

Article 4, I mean this absolutely 100%......I sincerely thank you for your service to our country, and respect you for the sacrifices you made. As for all the medical/doctor stuff.....some are good and some arent', and after the covid fiasco I don't trust them or the CDC, WHO, etc near as much as I used to.

Thank you - I appreciate that

I left healthcare at COVID - for that exact reason. I could not be a part of it.

 

[JGRaider]

Thank you - I appreciate that

I left healthcare at COVID - for that exact reason. I could not be a part of it.

I now respect you even more!

OH, BTW, agree with you on the DH as well, as I played professional baseball for several years.

 

[Article 4]

I now respect you even more!

OH, BTW, agree with you on the DH as well, as I played professional baseball for several years.

My thanks.
Working in the pinnacle of the sport must have been amazing. Congrats!

 

[HandgunHTR]

Now to the fun stuff

I have hunted my entire life - bow, Rifle, Muzzle loader, harsh language too
Fished my entire life - fly and bait - some harsh language there from time to time
Reloaded for more than 20 years
Killed 128 big game animals on 3 continents
Believe in the designated hitter
Am sure that Owsald never acted alone
Have an issue with trucks and buy one about every 24 months
Think good bourbon is nearly a perfect beverage
Been published a dozen times in the outdoor world, not just some website, actually published
Am on a quest to purge nearly every processed food out of my life
Am the king of Ice Cream!
Used to date one of the girls from baywatch...probably aging myself but ok
Never married, no kids - not even a baby daddy either
Never took the COVID vaccine
I am afraid of crickets - hate em

Look you wanna bury the hatchet. I am in.
If not, we can agree to disagree. But Ill leave that up to you

10.5 year Navy submarine veteran
Bachelors Degree in Nuclear Engineering, minor in Chemistry
Masters Degree in Quality Assurance focused on Statistical Process Control
Started working on my PhD in physics but changed careers and moved in another direction, plus not that interested in Acedemic politics anymore

I too have hunted my whole life, although I didn't take a rifle out for big game until I was 25. Only bow before that.
Grew up in the land of 10,000 lakes, so fishing was/and is a very important part of my outdoor life. I have 3 Manitoba Master Angler certificates (Walleye, Smallmouth, and Lake Trout) and hope to have my 4th by the end of the year. I have also caught a 52" muskie.
I started reloading in 1998
I have killed over 1000 big game animals, mostly in NA, but a few in Europe.
I stopped watching and giving a crap about baseball in 1994 due to the strike
I also believe that Oswald didn't act alone, but I am not convinced what he did was not what was necessary.
I also like trucks, but I keep mine a minimum of 8 years before I get a new one
Rye is better than bourbon.
I too have been published, but all mine are technical papers in the power generation industry. I have my name on 3 patents as well.
I am not quite as motivated to get rid off all processed foods, but most of my meat is game meat, and a lot of my veggies come from mine and my friends gardens.
Not really an ice cream kind of guy, myself. My treat of preference is dark chocolate.
I have been married to the same woman since 1994. No kids.
Never took the "vaccine" either. Was super glad I was working for a company that didn't buy into that BS either (see career change note above)
I use crickets for panfish/catfish bait regularly and have eaten them on more than one occasion.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

 

[Article 4]

10.5 year Navy submarine veteran
Bachelors Degree in Nuclear Engineering, minor in Chemistry
Masters Degree in Quality Assurance focused on Statistical Process Control
Started working on my PhD in physics but changed careers and moved in another direction, plus not that interested in Acedemic politics anymore

I too have hunted my whole life, although I didn't take a rifle out for big game until I was 25. Only bow before that.
Grew up in the land of 10,000 lakes, so fishing was/and is a very important part of my outdoor life. I have 3 Manitoba Master Angler certificates (Walleye, Smallmouth, and Lake Trout) and hope to have my 4th by the end of the year. I have also caught a 52" muskie.
I started reloading in 1998
I have killed over 1000 big game animals, mostly in NA, but a few in Europe.
I stopped watching and giving a crap about baseball in 1994 due to the strike
I also believe that Oswald didn't act alone, but I am not convinced what he did was not what was necessary.
I also like trucks, but I keep mine a minimum of 8 years before I get a new one
Rye is better than bourbon.
I too have been published, but all mine are technical papers in the power generation industry. I have my name on 3 patents as well.
I am not quite as motivated to get rid off all processed foods, but most of my meat is game meat, and a lot of my veggies come from mine and my friends gardens.
Not really an ice cream kind of guy, myself. My treat of preference is dark chocolate.
I have been married to the same woman since 1994. No kids.
Never took the "vaccine" either. Was super glad I was working for a company that didn't buy into that BS either (see career change note above)
I use crickets for panfish/catfish bait regularly and have eaten them on more than one occasion.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

Good deal...if you hunt you are a friend of mine

 

[RockAndSage]

This is perhaps the most salient set of issues I've seen written on what concerns me specifically about the "science" involved in the lead debate regarding hunting. Unless each of these issues are accounted for, it is just not possible to use "science" in a valid way as justification for a ban on lead-based ammunition.

^ Read this again.

Now...

Read your reply again:

I don’t think anyone here has suggested bans on lead bullets for big game hunting basis human health risks

I'm going to assume this was an unintentional straw-man argument, given the absurdity of suggesting I was saying that.

(I’m also not aware of serious discussions for doing so at regulatory level, but could be wrong).

Yes, you are. Obama's director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued an order banning lead ammo from all federal wildlife refuges, the day before President Trump was first sworn in. It was rescinded by the Trump Administration. Then in 2022, Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth introduced legislation to do the same thing, and the Biden Administration also attempted to do the same thing. This covers it well.

The discussion is more geared around should you or your family as a consumer of game meat shot with lead be concerned about the lead exposure for human health (physical effects, cognitive development etc).

My take is that the discussion was primarily oriented around the validity of the science on the subject - and it absolutely bears great danger in being misused as part of a political agenda by the left, whereby salami-slice bans on lead ammo are themselves part of a broader strategy in banning guns. The exact comment of ElPollos that I responded to dealt with the issues of the science, which are equally important whether talking about personal health or any "science" being weaponized against hunters.

This stuff matters.

 

[RockAndSage]

It’s important to remember that “science”is a bunch of individuals. There isn’t any single oversight board. There are no annual discussions of what the goals are or what the political stance is on anything. It’s a bunch of nerds working independently who get feedback from their peers on their work at fairly long intervals. Science is also based on assumptions. And as “they” say, all assumptions are wrong. They are a placeholder until you get more information. The take home is that it’s not about whether you can trust science. Science is always something that requires scrutiny and interpretation. Most scientists would much rather tell you what they don’t know than what they do know. Science is also iterative and slow. But if there is a group you should be untrustworthy of, its the advocates and the policy makers.

You're right and not at the same time here.

Yes, "science" is a bunch of individuals. But those individuals were also matriculated through institutions where their worldviews and careers are impacted by cultural biases, which they internalize to greater or lesser degrees. Whether in grad school, post-grad, working in industry, government, or public policy, the relevant institutional culture of "they" is a very real thing with very real impacts on "science" - especially on any subject with an environmental or political bent.

Advocates and policy makers - yes, instant distrust until and unless proven otherwise. And - those who fund the science.

If someone does not know the institutions an individual scientist comes out of, and who is funding the science, then that "science" is simply not vetted.

 

[Hoopleheader]

^ Read this again.

Now...

Read your reply again:



I'm going to assume this was an unintentional straw-man argument, given the absurdity of suggesting I was saying that.





Yes, you are. Obama's director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued an order banning lead ammo from all federal wildlife refuges, the day before President Trump was first sworn in. It was rescinded by the Trump Administration. Then in 2022, Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth introduced legislation to do the same thing, and the Biden Administration also attempted to do the same thing. This covers it well.




My take is that the discussion was primarily oriented around the validity of the science on the subject - and it absolutely bears great danger in being misused as part of a political agenda by the left, whereby salami-slice bans on lead ammo are themselves part of a broader strategy in banning guns. The exact comment of ElPollos that I responded to dealt with the issues of the science, which are equally important whether talking about personal health or any "science" being weaponized against hunters.

This stuff matters.

Correct assumption on your part, I had no ill intent.

Appreciate the policy education.

 

[ElPollo]

You're right and not at the same time here.

Yes, "science" is a bunch of individuals. But those individuals were also matriculated through institutions where their worldviews and careers are impacted by cultural biases, which they internalize to greater or lesser degrees. Whether in grad school, post-grad, working in industry, government, or public policy, the relevant institutional culture of "they" is a very real thing with very real impacts on "science" - especially on any subject with an environmental or political bent.

Advocates and policy makers - yes, instant distrust until and unless proven otherwise. And - those who fund the science.

If someone does not know the institutions an individual scientist comes out of, and who is funding the science, then that "science" is simply not vetted.

Yeah, I disagree. I know some really conservative scientists and consider myself to be an educated, well-travelled, gun-toting, hillbilly. The world is very politically divided these days and it’s dangerous to make assumptions about what tribe people align themselves with. Having been both in the research and policy worlds, I would say you have less to worry about with scientists than you think. Most of them are frankly too autistic to be corrupted by funding. Folks like that are not capable of lying, no matter what their academic lineage is. Advocates and policy people seem to be more morally fluid and financially driven.