Lead ingestion health risks

[Trial153]

threads like this remind me of the quote Isaac Asimov’s made all those years ago. Seems the cult is still going strong

 

[roadrunner]

A lot of these threads would only be 2 posts if Form jumped on as soon as they appear, pontificates some kind of a 2 or 3 sentence discourse, and then shut the thread down...

 

[JGRaider]

Isn’t that actually quite high? Believe the US average is less than 1

<10mcg/dL is normal in adult humans.

 

[Hoopleheader]

<10 is normal in adult humans.

 

[JGRaider]

Memorize the last paragraph.....

In adults, lead blood levels up to 10 mcg/dL are considered normal. Anywhere from 10 to 25 mcg/dL is a sign that you’re regularly exposed to lead. At 80 mcg/dL, you should consider treatment. Levels lower than 80 mcg/dl with symptoms may also indicate a need for treatment

Lead Blood Test: What to Expect

If you or your child has been exposed to lead, you both should be tested. A lead blood test is simple, and it provides information that could save your life. WebMD explains what you should know.

www.webmd.com

 

[eric1115]

Current reference level for adults is 5.0, but that is only a percentile figure, not a risk level figure. Higher than 5.0 means you are higher than 97.5% of the population, but it does not speak at all to the degree to which that level means you are at risk for health problems.

At least that's my understanding, please feel free to correct me if I've got my facts wrong.

 

[RockAndSage]

Current reference level for adults is 5.0, but that is only a percentile figure, not a risk level figure. Higher than 5.0 means you are higher than 97.5% of the population, but it does not speak at all to the degree to which that level means you are at risk for health problems.

At least that's my understanding, please feel free to correct me if I've got my facts wrong.

It's also worth questioning what that 5.0 guideline is based on - who recommended, what research, and whether there was any bias in bringing it down to that lower level. A lot of the political strategy behind a number of leftist movements explicitly involves moving-the-goalposts as part of a broader approach.

 

[JGRaider]

Current reference level for adults is 5.0, but that is only a percentile figure, not a risk level figure. Higher than 5.0 means you are higher than 97.5% of the population, but it does not speak at all to the degree to which that level means you are at risk for health problems.

At least that's my understanding, please feel free to correct me if I've got my facts wrong.

Depends on the "expert" you talk to or where you read it I guess, and I'm no doctor so I rely on my rheumatologist's opinion. We go over about 40 different results every quarterly visits, and it falls within the normal category on the results I get, and that's what he says as well. Since I'm in much better health now than 2020, under his care, I'll rely on his professional opinion.

 

[Hoopleheader]

 

[RockAndSage]

When you take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of the 99% of the voting public who doesn’t think about hunting, I actually believe when sportsman dig into an issue like this it does more harm than good .

With news stories of Bald Eagles flooding the local raptor center with lead posing following hunting season, it does far more damage to our long term prospects of maintaining rights than any slippery slope towards backwards gun bans. It communicates that we don’t give a shit, and when that is perceived that is how you get regulation shoved down your throat.

This is a politically suicidal strategy, no matter how genuinely you believe it. It is only a matter of degree different from saying "guns shouldn't be kept at home because the accidental deaths of kids and easy access for suicides" - who wants more kids dead, or easy suicide? How could you be in favor of that???

That's where that leads.

The answer is not crawling away in fear - the answer is organized information campaigns spanning years and generations, and advocacy at every level.

 

[JGRaider]

View attachment 820182

Good data regarding children. I'm 64.

 

[Hoopleheader]

Good data regarding children. I'm 64.

I was explaining the reference level of some one else’s post

Everything I am seeing is the average us lead level is something like 10-20% of yours. It doesn’t mean you are going to fall over dead, but it does indicate you have more ongoing lead exposure than the average bear

 

[Hoopleheader]

I was explaining the reference level of some one else’s report.

Everything I am seeing is the average us lead level is something like 10-20% of yours. It doesn’t mean you are going to fall over dead, but it does indicate you have more ongoing lead exposure than the average bear

I would add that I would be shocked if you had levels that high from eating game meat.

I’d assume you have exposure from your occupation, home, or from primers

 

[JGRaider]

In adults, lead blood levels up to 10 mcg/dL are considered normal. Anywhere from 10 to 25 mcg/dL is a sign that you’re regularly exposed to lead. At 80 mcg/dL, you should consider treatment. Levels lower than 80 mcg/dl with symptoms may also indicate a need for treatment

Once again, depends on your source, this being WebMD. I appreciate your concern though.

 

[Article 4]

Once again, depends on your source, this being WebMD. I appreciate your concern though.

Looked up Europe and the rest of the world through WHO to take US bias out of it.

Attached

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Why don't the people that don't want to use lead ammo shoot lead free and people that want to use lead ammo use lead ammo?

 

[Hoopleheader]

Once again, depends on your source, this being WebMD. I appreciate your concern though.

Looked up Europe and the rest of the world through WHO to take US bias out of it.

Attached

These are medical intervention guidlines, and not statistics of what is “normal” (mean, median)

 

[Article 4]

These are medical intervention guidlines, and not statistics of what is “normal” (mean, median)

exactly. anything below that would NOT need intervention and likely normal.

 

[Hoopleheader]

exactly. anything below that would NOT need intervention and likely

I’m sure I will get flamed, but the current consensus at an academic level is that existing guidelines are overly generous, especially in children. The basic gist is that any blood lead level is harmful (but as I’ve said, we all die of something).

I would say that if you were trying to study the effects of ingesting game on BLLs, you would try to look for statistically significant increases in a population, not just whether those who consume game had levels requiring intervention.

 

[Article 4]

I’m sure I will get flamed, but the current consensus at an academic level is that existing guidelines are overly generous, especially in children. The basic gist is that any blood lead level is harmful (but as I’ve said, we all die of something).

I would say that if you were trying to study the effects of ingesting game on BLLs, you would try to look for statistically significant increases in a population, not just whether those who consume game had levels requiring intervention.

no flaming. Just a good discussion as it sounds like you are familiar with how it work

So statistical significance is important, and measure P Value (maybe some folks read this and aren't familiar) is how we gauge it.

P value is generally not considered part of a small sample set study - which these are. P values of 0.05 would be min to achieve significance. A P value of .0005 would be very significant. The lower the number, the less variance in the data and more reliable it is

To achieve that kind of data, we need a control group, and randomization, and blinding of the data with at at least 60 people and more likely something around 200-300 to show any hope of a really good of P Value.

These studies weren’t powered to look at statistical significance, they merely looked at trackable levels. I included them only to answer the OP question of does it transmit and is it possible.