Lead ingestion health risks

[PistolPete]

I can't recall the name of the website. Had something with "Truth" in it, I believe. "Search for Truth" or something like that but I can't find it under that name on an internet search. It basically took every argument the liars claimed and provided research to refute it and prove otherwise. It was geared more toward the lead shot argument leading to raptor deaths, etc (which has never been proven). For example, they proved that the lead isotopes found in dead condors were not the same lead as that found in bird shot but instead was likely coming from paint on some towers in their nesting area. Of course, the govt would never want to admit that because it doesn't fit their agenda. Anecdotal evidence suggests it's all a lie as well. I eat game several days a week, most shot with lead bullets(sans the elk I kill with a bow). I eat pheasants taken with lead shot and when I fished a lot, would often have lead split shot in my mouth until I came up with the right wt combination that I needed for bait presentation. When I had my Lead serum level tested, it was undetectable despite all these ridiculous claims. How many people have you heard of dying from lead poisoning due to ingestion of game??? NONE. Because it's all a bunch of BS.

The site was huntfortruth.org - it's still accessible on archive.org, I believe.

And I don't know about the condor isotope isssue, but I do know that the guys at the North American Non-Lead Partnership admitted when I went to their training that the proportion of condor mortality due to lead toxicity remained unchanged after banning lead bullets for hunting in the condor range - that fits with the different isotope issue.

They seemed shocked when I pointed out that their own data indicate that changing to non lead bullets does not improve avian lead toxicity mortality...

 

[ElPollo]

The site was huntfortruth.org - it's still accessible on archive.org, I believe.

And I don't know about the condor isotope isssue, but I do know that the guys at the North American Non-Lead Partnership admitted when I went to their training that the proportion of condor mortality due to lead toxicity remained unchanged after banning lead bullets for hunting in the condor range - that fits with the different isotope issue.

They seemed shocked when I pointed out that their own data indicate that changing to non lead bullets does not improve avian lead toxicity mortality...

So this is the big weakness of the raptor and lead studies out there. They assume that particles of metallic lead in carcasses are the source of eagle and raptor lead levels. While that is not an unrealistic initial assumption, it should be tested. I have not seen that work anywhere to date.

 

[Article 4]

I can't recall the name of the website. Had something with "Truth" in it, I believe. "Search for Truth" or something like that but I can't find it under that name on an internet search. It basically took every argument the liars claimed and provided research to refute it and prove otherwise. It was geared more toward the lead shot argument leading to raptor deaths, etc (which has never been proven). For example, they proved that the lead isotopes found in dead condors were not the same lead as that found in bird shot but instead was likely coming from paint on some towers in their nesting area. Of course, the govt would never want to admit that because it doesn't fit their agenda. Anecdotal evidence suggests it's all a lie as well. I eat game several days a week, most shot with lead bullets(sans the elk I kill with a bow). I eat pheasants taken with lead shot and when I fished a lot, would often have lead split shot in my mouth until I came up with the right wt combination that I needed for bait presentation. When I had my Lead serum level tested, it was undetectable despite all these ridiculous claims. How many people have you heard of dying from lead poisoning due to ingestion of game??? NONE. Because it's all a bunch of BS.

Respect your opinion - there is A LOT of confounding study information out there. Have you read the studies included here? Its a long thread so maybe not. One of the biggest issues is whose agenda is the data being sponsored. The vast majority of it is coming from "green" and "anti-hunting" groups. We all know how that is going to end. Some of the better data (IMO) is coming from non-US data that has no agenda here, but there is starting to be US based hunting data from red states too.

Being involved in this thread and seeing the grandiose statements by a lot of the slide regulars, some directed straight at me, I kept looking.

Keeping to the OP question:
We have evidence of lead from game being transmitted to humans. That is clear. What is not clear is evidence to it leading to a human death from eating game with verified lead from hunters.

What we do know is:

• Ingesting lead is bad - ingesting it in larger quantities is worse
• For those who ingest large quantities, the health risks are well documented and are supported consistently no matter which side of the house you are on
• Those health risks are especially critical for child bearing parents and young humans - there is a direct correlation between BLL levels of lead and cognitive disorders in children and even kidney disease in adults
• There are 4 studies that show a direct link to game meat shot with rifle bullets and shot, increasing BLL levels in adults - this was the actual OP question
• There appears to be no consensus on the exact level of lead that causes issues in every human
  
  The 4 studies that were included here - 2 of them weren't even in the US - so likely less of an agenda since those countries advocate for hunting and their populations live on it.

Will submit a few more -

• One from outdoor life that references the N Dakota study listed in this thread - no comments, read a decide for yourself - https://www.outdoorlife.com/is-game-meat-shot-with-lead-safe-to-eat/

• One from great Britain that outlines many of the questions being asked and discussed here - again tried to find things that aren't part of the US agenda to take some of the slant out of them - https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...und-to-contain-many-tiny-shards-of-toxic-lead

• There is another Rokslide thread on this from 2020 - may wanna go through that too - https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/lead-contamination-in-meat.172765/

• Here is a publication from the Boone and Crocket Club - https://www.boone-crockett.org/when-lead-meets-red-meat-0

These are not my data nor my work - simply reading them and forming my own opinion - up to you to do the same.

• After reading about 20 papers now, saying there is NO evidence of lead from hunting does not pass from the game to humans is false. This was the OP question
• I also read that in some data the direct and verified blood link from that same lead scientifically verified transmission and adverse events in humans - adults to a certain extent but undeniably to fetus and children
• Completely agree, in adults like us that it a ton of game meat, I can find no evidence showing death from it. I can also not find anything that shows that in large samples sets - meaning thousands of people
• The source of the data means a lot - some is probably really good, some maybe not

My thing is if I can read actual data and make a decision, it is better than listening to me or anyone else on here's opinion...I can find out for myself.

 

[Article 4]

You're either one of the stupid smart people or part of the propaganda machine. First, your "retrospective study" is garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. First, the "study" is a meta-analysis and review of other literature. If you compile information and data from multiple studies which were originally suited to comply with an agenda or poorly performed, you get more of the agenda-driven results. Second, YOU HAVE PROVIDED ZERO PROOF OF ANYTHING. You like to sound smart and persuasive but actually are showing your ignorance. And for that reason, I'm not going to get into an argument with you as I have with many others in the past over this subject because it's futile.

Thanks for your polite and nice response:
Its not my data - not setting out to prove anything to you - only to answer the OP question
The 4 studies listed as direct references are stand along papers, not meta-analysis or retrospective studies
If you haven't read the 4 studies, I encourage you to

 

[Article 4]

Really????? Where are the blood levels reported in the study????? If they were done as part of a LEGITIMATE study, they'd report them BUT THEY DIDN'T!!!!

How do you define legitimate? Is it your definition or is it what actual Phd scientists have set as a standard?

 

[eric1115]

You're either one of the stupid smart people or part of the propaganda machine. First, your "retrospective study" is garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. First, the "study" is a meta-analysis and review of other literature. If you compile information and data from multiple studies which were originally suited to comply with an agenda or poorly performed, you get more of the agenda-driven results. Second, YOU HAVE PROVIDED ZERO PROOF OF ANYTHING. You like to sound smart and persuasive but actually are showing your ignorance. And for that reason, I'm not going to get into an argument with you as I have with many others in the past over this subject because it's futile.

Really????? Where are the blood levels reported in the study????? If they were done as part of a LEGITIMATE study, they'd report them BUT THEY DIDN'T!!!!

Article 4 is one of the guys still wearing a mask, has all his boosters and believes Covid came from the wet market because all the studies told him so.

Dave, this has so far been a really respectful and productive conversation so far. Please try to keep it that way. @Article 4, thank you for not rising to the bait. I disagree with your conclusions to a moderate extent, but I really respect the way you've handled yourself in this thread.

 

[Article 4]

Article 4 is one of the guys still wearing a mask, has all his boosters and believes Covid came from the wet market because all the studies told him so.

Unfortunate -

Dave, this has so far been a really respectful and productive conversation so far. Please try to keep it that way. @Article 4, thank you for not rising to the bait. I disagree with your conclusions to a moderate extent, but I really respect the way you've handled yourself in this thread.

All good, No intent to change anyones mind - did a lot of work and took a lot of time to provide more than just wild innuendo - appreciate that you took a look

Cheers and thanks!

 

[Taprack9]

I ended up switching to copper about 10 years ago. At the time it was when I switched from a 32 special to a .270

The .270 loves the Barnes TTSX and now I find myself a bit torn. I don’t think I’m going to get sick from eating game shot with lead but there is somewhat of a psychological aspect that keeps me from jumping back to traditional bullets.

There is absolutely no argument that lead performs better on game in a lot of situations. The high BC of heavy for caliber bullets is legit. I haven’t built a long range rifle but when I do it’ll likely be a 7mm using a relatively high BC bullet, my eye is on the Terminal Ascent.

Although this year I shot a doe with a Brenneke 12 gauge lead slug. It’s eating pretty damn good!

 

[Ens Entium]

https://soundcloud.com/huntbackcountry%2F503-the-dangers-of-lead-ammunition

I happened to listen to this the day after it came out by coincidence and found it very educational and as unbiased as reasonably possible. Highly recommended.