This is why I finally just ignored him. No good faith arguments and continuously changes the bar and edits posts to change the commentary. The way he states that the papers or information he shares shows one thing when it reads a completely different way is baffling. Best of luck for anyone trying to engage in honest discourse with that user.
Jay
Read the actual study that you keep quoting! Not the "retrospective" study, the one referenced. Johansen et al 2006. You will find that they did not definitively link the increased blood levels of lead to actual ingestion of lead from bullets. And the Bjermo study that showed that "several individuals" had higher than threshold values also showed that many of those individuals were also competitive shooters or had jobs that also exposed them to lead.
As far as the retrospective study stating, "We found that more than 99% of them raised concerns over use of lead-based ammunition.", well color me surprised. Of course they raised concerns. They want it gone. The problem is that the studies cannot show to a scientific level of proof that it is a problem.
That is the only thing you pulled out of that entire paper? I have read it all including the prospective studies that led to the paper.
Lead shot are bullets! No to mention the study actually calls out in Baltro, meek, and mateo - knudtsen
The lead in particles of ingested ammunition fragments can be transformed to soluble lead ions and absorbed (Barltrop and Meek
1979), and cooking in acidic media may increase its bioavailability in humans (Mateo et al.
2011). A number of European food safety agencies now advise children and women of pregnancy age to avoid eating game shot with lead (Knutsen et al.
2015).
Funny - when I read the Johnson study it says and pay attention to the bold!
In Canada, 11% of lead levels in breast muscle of waterfowl exceeded the national residue guideline value of 0.5 μg/g-wet wt for fish protein (Scheuhammer et al., 1998). In Greenland, we found that 11% of lead levels in breast muscle of thick-billed murre (
Uria lomvia) exceeded the Danish residue guideline value of 0.3 μg/g-wet wt (Johansen et al., 2001).
Since seabirds are important in the local diet, we concluded that birds hunted with lead shot are probably the most important lead source for many people in Greenland. Other studies have also pointed to game hunted with lead shot as a lead source in the diet, e.g. Tsuji et al., 1999, Tsuji et al., 2001 for the First Nation Cree in Northern Ontario, Canada, and Kosatsky et al. (2001) for Montrealers consuming sportfish and waterfowl.
In Greenland, a relationship between bird intake and blood lead has been documented. In a cross sectional population survey in West Greenland, Bjerregaard et al. (in prep.) found that participants reporting less than weekly intake of seabirds had blood lead levels around 75 μg/l, while those reporting to eat seabirds several times per week had more than 50% higher blood lead levels.
Lead shot pellets eaten unintended may result in increased lead exposure and intoxication in humans (Hillman, 1967, Madsen et al., 1998, Johansen & Nygård, 1987). For some groups lead shot from the consumption of game are common in the gastro-intestinal system as found in people from the western James Bay region (Tsuji and Nieboer, 1997) or people from Newfoundland (Reddy, 1985).
Your words:
As far as the retrospective study stating, "We found that more than 99% of them raised concerns over use of lead-based ammunition.", well color me surprised. Of course they raised concerns. They want it gone. The problem is that the studies cannot show to a scientific level of proof that it is a problem.
The lanphear study cited that states it DOES raise concerns - in the actual paper talking about blood born lead affecting unborn fetuses
The preponderance of experimental and human data indicates that there are persistent and deleterious effects of blood lead levels > 10 μg/dL on brain function, including lowered intelligence, behavioral problems, and diminished school performance (
Baghurst et al. 1992;
Bellinger et al. 1992;
Cory-Slechta 1997;
Dietrich et al. 1993;
Ernhart et al. 1989;
National Research Council 1993;
Needleman and Gatsonis 1990;
Pocock et al. 1994;
Rice 1993;
Wasserman et al. 1997;
Yule et al. 1981). Lead toxicity, defined as whole blood lead ≥10 μg/dL, was based on numerous cross-sectional and prospective studies [
Bellinger et al. 1987; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) 1991; World Health Organization
(WHO) 1995]. These studies generally, but not always, found adverse consequences of childhood lead exposure (
CDC 1991;
WHO 1995). Still, most of the children in those studies had blood lead levels > 10 μg/dL. The WHO and the CDC recognized that there was no discernable threshold for the adverse effects of lead exposure, but too few studies had examined children with blood lead levels < 10 μg/dL to support any firm conclusions (
CDC 1991;
WHO 1995).
I can go on and on -
Look don't believe it - eat as much lead as you like
