Lead ingestion health risks

[Article 4]

There is a comma. I stated that eating wild game does not cause medically validated increased blood lead levels, because there despite an entire “industry” if you will, trying to show how it’s- there is nothing. If you would prefer that I put period water “there are no studies that show it does”- no problem.

I stated “because it doesn’t”, because despite trying to prove it dies- including lying and being deliberately disingenuous; there are no legit studies that show that hunters who eat meat from animals killed with lead based bullets have a higher BLL than the same population that doesn’t.

Yeah but in this case there is proof.

The study submitted states clearly - lead from shot and bullets are shown to have negative health affects in adult humans and unborn fetuses. It also shows that populations in Scandinavia that have a diet higher in birds and other animals that have more lead in them show more blood lead levels above the standard - that standard would be the rest of the population

People who frequently consume game shot with lead ammunition are at risk from high dietary lead exposure, e.g., Greenlanders had mean blood lead levels four to ten times higher than the EFSA benchmark dose modeling (BMDL) thresholds for developmental neurotoxicity in children and for chronic kidney disease in adults (Johansen et al. 2006). Bjermo et al. (2013) showed that increased blood lead levels in Swedish adults were associated with wild game consumption and that the blood lead concentrations in several individuals exceeded EFSA’s BMDL threshold values. The sources of lead in wild game were hunting bullets or shot.

Did you actually read it or just continue on with your bias view?

You often chastise me and others about Proof - whether the proof meets "form" standards is not the issue.

 

[Article 4]

Yeah, I am not in this to argue with you, just telling you what a guy on the "outside" of your discussion sees. I am not sure anyone in this thread disagrees that ingesting lead is a bad thing. What we are trying to prove or disprove is shooting an animal with a lead core rifle bullet can lead to an increase in BLL.

I have no data to support my position, but I believe that there is little, to no way a rear quarter would be affected by a shot to the thoracic cavity. Now how big that lead dispersion is, is of debate, as well as how much ingestion it would take to increase BLL. If I was eating all the meat around the wound, I could infer that my lead intake would be increased. Again, I have no data to support my beliefs, which is why I am in this thread. I am looking for data.

Fair enough - not trying to argue with you either and I appreciate the outside lens.


Maybe take a look at some of the quotes and data in the study around BLL. You can decide for yourself if there is anything to it.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yeah but in this case there is proof.

The study submitted states clearly - lead from shot and bullets are shown to have negative health affects in adult humans and unborn fetuses. It also shows that populations in Scandinavia that have a diet higher in birds and other animals that have more lead in them show more blood lead levels above the standard - that standard would be the rest of the population

People who frequently consume game shot with lead ammunition are at risk from high dietary lead exposure, e.g., Greenlanders had mean blood lead levels four to ten times higher than the EFSA benchmark dose modeling (BMDL) thresholds for developmental neurotoxicity in children and for chronic kidney disease in adults (Johansen et al. 2006). Bjermo et al. (2013) showed that increased blood lead levels in Swedish adults were associated with wild game consumption and that the blood lead concentrations in several individuals exceeded EFSA’s BMDL threshold values. The sources of lead in wild game were hunting bullets or shot.

Did you actually read it or just continue on with your bias view?

You often chastise me and others about Proof - whether the proof meets "form" standards is not the issue.

You do not understand what you read- how many people have to point that out to you in each thread?

 

[bmart2622]

The thread title is lead ingestion health risks. You wanna ignore clear results of the study by people who are way smarter on the subject than any of us here. Have at it and ignore away

Eat as much lead as you like

And the name of this forum is Roklside, which is a HUNTING forum!!! Not hard to understand that people are referencing hunting related lead exposure, as in from a bullet shot from a gun and into a game animal and then eaten. If its not relevant to that then this probably isnt the platform for it

 

[Article 4]

You do not understand what you read- how many people have to point that out to you in each thread?

OK I am asking in 100% sincerity - explain this to me so I do understand

People who frequently consume game shot with lead ammunition are at risk from high dietary lead exposure, e.g., Greenlanders had mean blood lead levels four to ten times higher than the EFSA benchmark dose modeling (BMDL) thresholds for developmental neurotoxicity in children and for chronic kidney disease in adults (Johansen et al. 2006). Bjermo et al. (2013) showed that increased blood lead levels in Swedish adults were associated with wild game consumption and that the blood lead concentrations in several individuals exceeded EFSA’s BMDL threshold values. The sources of lead in wild game were hunting bullets or shot.

 

[Article 4]

And the name of this forum is Roklside, which is a HUNTING forum!!! Not hard to understand that people are referencing hunting related lead exposure, as in from a bullet shot from a gun and into a game animal and then eaten. If its not relevant to that then this probably isnt the platform for it

Ok and another opportunity for me to understand - 100% sincerity here.

How did I misinterpret this?

People who frequently consume game shot with lead ammunition are at risk from high dietary lead exposure, e.g., Greenlanders had mean blood lead levels four to ten times higher than the EFSA benchmark dose modeling (BMDL) thresholds for developmental neurotoxicity in children and for chronic kidney disease in adults (Johansen et al. 2006). Bjermo et al. (2013) showed that increased blood lead levels in Swedish adults were associated with wild game consumption and that the blood lead concentrations in several individuals exceeded EFSA’s BMDL threshold values. The sources of lead in wild game were hunting bullets or shot.

 

[bmart2622]

Ok and another opportunity for me to understand - 100% sincerity here.

How did I misinterpret this?

People who frequently consume game shot with lead ammunition are at risk from high dietary lead exposure, e.g., Greenlanders had mean blood lead levels four to ten times higher than the EFSA benchmark dose modeling (BMDL) thresholds for developmental neurotoxicity in children and for chronic kidney disease in adults (Johansen et al. 2006). Bjermo et al. (2013) showed that increased blood lead levels in Swedish adults were associated with wild game consumption and that the blood lead concentrations in several individuals exceeded EFSA’s BMDL threshold values. The sources of lead in wild game were hunting bullets or shot.

I asked questions earlier and you didnt answer them!! Yes, lead is bad, not denying that. But I do question the credibility and validity if this or any study as most start out with an agenda.

 

[Bluumoon]

It is absolutely a study. It is called a "retrospective study" - they are used across multiple industries and scientific forums to do exactly what that study did...take a huge amount of science based, peer reviewed, and qualitative information and summarize the consensus of the points into one paper. So rather than just dismissing it without knowing, maybe ask first.

This particular study is a case series study which generally; is the description of a group of cases with an unusual disease or treatment.. So very appropriate for this topic



Again, that is what a retrospective study does. Did you even read the whole thing?

I didn't have to go back and read them all because the unbiased nature of a retrospective study means they do it for you.

You wanna go deep, the references are there for you.

FALSE


As I stated earlier. You must go back and read the original studies and determine bias, study design, validity of each. One authors vision of what is valid/unbiased varies greatly. If 300 hundred studies meet criteria to be included, but half of them use questionable hypothesis, methods, etc. Then what?

Do I rely on retrospective studies to do what I do, yes. If it doesn’t make sense vs what I see in practice do I try other things or dig deeper, yes.

I do appreciate the link to the review article, it links much of the primary research for me to go back and look at.

 

[Article 4]

I asked questions earlier and you didnt answer them!! Yes, lead is bad, not denying that. But I do question the credibility and validity if this or any study as most start out with an agenda.

I didn't? my bad...

you didnt answer yours either. You made mention that this is a hunting forum and I quote - "And the name of this forum is Roklside, which is a HUNTING forum!!! Not hard to understand that people are referencing hunting related lead exposure, as in from a bullet shot from a gun and into a game animal and then eaten. If its not relevant to that then this probably isnt the platform for it"

The study actually looks directly at hunting bullets and that it transfers to humans causing disease and negative outcomes.

Whether it passes your litmus test on validity - I cannot say - but it does mine.

 

[WRO]

There’s actually a study on native children in Alaska and considering the amount of critters they eat killed by lead, they have some of the lowest levels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Article 4]

FALSE


As I stated earlier. You must go back and read the original studies and determine bias, study design, validity of each. One authors vision of what is valid/unbiased varies greatly. If 300 hundred studies meet criteria to be included, but half of them use question hypothesis, methods, etc. Then what?

Do I rely on retrospective studies to do what I do, yes. If it doesn’t make sense vs what I see in practice do I try other things or dig deeper, yes.

I do appreciate the link to the review article, it links much of the primary research for me to go back and look at.

Your entitled to your opinion -

I relied on prospective and retrospective studies in over 20 years of what I did for work - hundreds of them...Ill am fine with my view of it.

Enjoy the reading

 

[Article 4]

You do not understand what you read- how many people have to point that out to you in each thread?

I had another thought but I don't want to edit the post in fear of being chastised and called a liar

You stated and I quote:

Not one of those addresses solid lead ingestion from projectiles causing medically validated increased blood lead levels.

This is 100% false - how did they determine blood levels? The only way to do that is to draw blood and measure it - pretty standard medical validation?

I’ll give you a hint- because there are no studies that show it does, because it doesn’t.

False - there are multiple studies that show it.

 

[bergie]

I stated that eating wild game does not cause medically validated increased blood lead levels

Again, all I am asking for is the data that supports for the above statement. If there is no study that shows BLL are not raised then how can you definitively say it is not?

I stated “because it doesn’t”, because despite trying to prove it does- including lying and being deliberately disingenuous; there are no legit studies that show that hunters who eat meat from animals killed with lead based bullets have a higher BLL than the same population that doesn’t.

Using flawed studies as evidence to support the opposite opinion...I don't think I would make that argument.

I do not care what you shoot at an animal or what you eat. Do you understand how research is approved and conducted? It is a real question- I am not being a jerk.
If you don’t, then simply: if someone wanted to conduct a legitimate research project to prove that lead bullets do not cause increased BLL, they would not get funding. You do not get money or grants for proving a negative in something like this- unless it is from a pharmaceutical company to “prove” that their drug is “safe”. Hence the reason why despite project after project trying to show lead bullets are dangerous in game meat- there is functionally nothing.

I am not asking how or why studies have or have not been done on the subject, I just asked for the proof.

I agree that most, if not all, of the studies proving that shooting a critter with lead and then eating it is ultra mega bad for you, are flawed or even worse, intentionally dishonest. HOWEVER because those are flawed it doesn't provide evidence that eating game meat killed with a lead projectile will not increase BLL.


btw I quite like this multi quote, answer only the portions of the statement that are easy for me. Makes me feel like a real rokslider. And GD before you quote this one, I realize you didn't do that on my last post, this is more of a generalization than anything else. Shit maybe I am falling into the trap of trying to 'win'.

 

[eric1115]

I had another thought but I don't want to edit the post in fear of being chastised and called a liar

You stated and I quote:

Not one of those addresses solid lead ingestion from projectiles causing medically validated increased blood lead levels.

This is 100% false - how did they determine blood levels? The only way to do that is to draw blood and measure it - pretty standard medical validation?

I’ll give you a hint- because there are no studies that show it does, because it doesn’t.

False - there are multiple studies that show it.

If a study showed that using lead bullets and eating that game meat causes BLL to increase by 1.0 µg/dL on average, does that demonstrate health risk from using lead bullets even if the resulting BLL is well under the reference level?

If a study showed that ingesting lead particles increases BLL significantly, but did not demonstrate that properly processed meat results in ingesting those particles, does that demonstrate health risk from using lead bullets?

If a study shows significantly elevated BLL correlated to eating game birds where 1 oz lead shot is used per 2lb bird, does that transfer to big game where 75-200 grains of lead is used per 200-500lb animal?

I think the answer to all three of those could be "maybe, but not necessarily." Would those three likely fall into the "positive correlation between lead bullets and health risk" pile in a survey article? I think probably so.

 

[eric1115]

Question for @Article 4, @Southern Lights, you guys seem very sure of yourselves that lead bullets definitely pose a health risk. What would the evidence look like that would shift your confidence level more toward a "hmm, I'm not sure."

Same question the other direction for @Bluumoon, @JGRaider, @Formidilosus.

You guys are making very definite declarative statements about the fact of the matter. What are you guys seeing that I'm not? I see research that looks to me like it has serious flaws, but some of it I don't have a really solid answer for.

To all: I appreciate how (relatively) well this has stayed on the rails!

 

[Bluumoon]

Question for @Article 4, @Southern Lights, you guys seem very sure of yourselves that lead bullets definitely pose a health risk. What would the evidence look like that would shift your confidence level more toward a "hmm, I'm not sure."

Same question the other direction for @Bluumoon, @JGRaider, @Formidilosus.

You guys are making very definite declarative statements about the fact of the matter. What are you guys seeing that I'm not? I see research that looks to me like it has serious flaws, but some of it I don't have a really solid answer for.

To all: I appreciate how (relatively) well this has stayed on the rails!

I'm not intentionally making declarative statements about the overall hypothesis, I haven't dug in and am grateful for links provided here. I am saying from what few studies I've spent time reading so far I have serious questions about the studies themselves and their usefulness in answering the question at hand (aside from identifying that there is a serious bias at play), the few that I have read are seriously flawed and thus useless in answering the question.

 

[Hoopleheader]

Posting this sort of question on a hunting forum, while admirable, is pissing in the wind unfortunately. Even if you asked it in the correct manner (which you did, asking for evidence vs opinions). Way too much confirmation bias and entrenched views (before you say “what about the .223 thread?” I’ll get my happy lotion and see you there).

While we are at it:

Do human caused carbon emissions influence the climate?

Can wolves be a healthy part of an ecosystem, and should predators be reintroduced across historical ranges where feasible?

Did you see less deer this year because of a bad winter, or was it wolves?

Is shooting past a quarter mile considered fair chase?

Do the environmental/health hazards of PFAS mean DWR coatings on our gear are bad?

Should the transport of live cervids be banned to control CWD?

Have you actually ever met an anti-hunter, or is it like that time when a friend of a friend saw a low life buy filet mignon with food stamps?

 

[Article 4]

If a study showed that using lead bullets and eating that game meat causes BLL to increase by 1.0 µg/dL on average, does that demonstrate health risk from using lead bullets even if the resulting BLL is well under the reference level?

If a study showed that ingesting lead particles increases BLL significantly, but did not demonstrate that properly processed meat results in ingesting those particles, does that demonstrate health risk from using lead bullets?

If a study shows significantly elevated BLL correlated to eating game birds where 1 oz lead shot is used per 2lb bird, does that transfer to big game where 75-200 grains of lead is used per 200-500lb animal?

I think the answer to all three of those could be "maybe, but not necessarily." Would those three likely fall into the "positive correlation between lead bullets and health risk" pile in a survey article? I think probably so.

To your first point - Are referring to Johansen? I didn't see that number in either Johansen or Bermeo?

My assumption is at that number 1.0 µg/dL, was supporting"Greenlanders had mean blood lead levels four to ten times higher than the EFSA benchmark dose modeling (BMDL) thresholds for developmental neurotoxicity in children and for chronic kidney disease in adults (Johansen et al. 2006). Perhaps 1.0 µg/dL is four to ten times higher?

Point 2: Didn't see them explain exactly how they processed the meat....do you have something on that? Hunt et al. said that all 30 deer processed in the Venison tested had rifle lead in it from hunters, and then they took it to another processor to check their own results and it showed lead presentation again. Is that one meal enough to cause issue? Don't know. They seem to point to long term exposure of the local diets contributing the most

Point 3? Where did you come up with those numbers? I looked at both studies in the quote and didn't see them?

Point 4 - without that cited specifically I tend to agree - maybe. I guess I rather go with what they cited around what they found than trying to figure out exactly how they get there. I guess I tried to answre the question with more than just opinion by citing multiple studies that all seemed to point to the same conclusion...a positive correlation between lead shot from bullets increasing health risk - to the OPs point.

 

[Article 4]

Question for @Article 4, @Southern Lights, you guys seem very sure of yourselves that lead bullets definitely pose a health risk. What would the evidence look like that would shift your confidence level more toward a "hmm, I'm not sure."

Same question the other direction for @Bluumoon, @JGRaider, @Formidilosus.

You guys are making very definite declarative statements about the fact of the matter. What are you guys seeing that I'm not? I see research that looks to me like it has serious flaws, but some of it I don't have a really solid answer for.

To all: I appreciate how (relatively) well this has stayed on the rails!

Yeah, I didn't know the answer so I went looking.

I am seeing this...A couple of studies (johansen and Bjermo) point pretty specifically to a direct correlation and outcome. They stated there is rifle and shot lead in the deer and in ducks and the people studied had higher levels of lead. Four to ten times higher from a steady diet of those animals. Those higher levels of lead are showing health risks to fetus and adults including brain issues and CKD. I took that at face value and that it addressed the OP question. Seems pretty declarative.

I probably would think differently if they said the data was inconclusive.

I appreciate it too, this so far has been a healthy discussion

 

[wyosam]

That's the issue. There haven't been any studies done without financial backing from a source with a desired outcome. If there were independent studies done using correctly designed scientific research following protocols for the scientific method that showed meaningful correlation between game shot with bullets containing lead of any percentage and a rise in levels of lead in the human body, would these studies not be easily found?

Jay

That is an exceptionally difficult study to conduct on humans. You can’t feed lead to humans (probably not easy to do on animals anymore either) for science- it’s not going to happen. You can do retrospective studies (try to compare kids from hunting families vs not etc), but trying to control for variables in the data is going to be impossible. This is unfortunately a question that will likely never get a really definitive answer like an actual study on humans would provide. It’s pretty safe to say there isn’t an argument about the potential benefits of eating any level of lead, so any study funding is likely coming from the other angle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk