Lead ingestion health risks

[Article 4]

Good for the OP.

I’m asking a different question.




P

Go read them and answer it for yourself

 

[Article 4]

As is pretty normal here. this thread has come full circle and now redundant.

Unwatch

Cheers all.

 

[Pharmseller]

Are we still quoting Shakespeare?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.




P

 

[JGRaider]

He wears his covid mask as he's riding around by himself in his Toyota Corolla.

 

[Pharmseller]

He wears his covid mask as he's riding around by himself in his Toyota Corolla.

Hey now, I used to have a Corolla.

And it’s past 8:15 pm in Texas, shouldn’t you be in bed?





P

 

[JGRaider]

Key word....."used" to, which is a good thing. HEY, easy now......I may be 64 but I'll have you know I can make it to 10pm easily.

 

[Pharmseller]

Key word....."used" to, which is a good thing. HEY, easy now......I may be 64 but I'll have you know I can make it to 10pm easily.

Yeah but I’ll bet you pay for it the next day.

Does Elmer’s still have the early bird special on meatloaf?




P

 

[Dave C.]

I'm only going to make one more post here as I recognized long ago it was futile to continue arguing with those incapable of critical thinking.
As a clinician and scientist, I unfortunately realized decades ago that the entire scientific community, from high-level govt agencies such as the CDC, FDA, DEA, NIH, etc down to university "researchers" was corrupted by big Pharma and those with a political agenda. Studies published in what were once reputable journals became garbage that provided conclusions and observations that were not only unsubstantiated by the results of the study but, at times, were directly contradicted by the study data. Nonetheless, these so-called "researchers" would lie and present conclusions based on an agenda because of either their personal ideologies or because the funding for the study came from another corrupt organization who needed a result to drive sales. Whether it be COVID, man's contributions to climate change, or lead poisoning, the vast majority of "studies" supporting the claims not only were unsubstantiated garbage but were outright lies.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, the internet opened up a forum for so-called "experts" to come on and make long-winded posts with really nothing to substantiate their arguments other than their "interpretation" of the study's conclusions that they keep demanding that others read. There are two types of these posters--those towing the line and perpetuating the agenda at all costs and "sheep" who refuse to acknowledge their own incapacity for critical thinking and admit they were wrong. Fortunately, many people awakened to the corruption of "science" during COVID but several "sheep" remain. Although I haven't read each and every post in this 12-pg long thread, I suspect that those who recognize the truth outweigh those bloviators who are incapable of deciphering good vs bad science and who feel the need to defend their ignorance or their agenda at all costs.
In many cases, common sense prevails as is the case with this debate. Ask yourself if you have ever known or even heard of someone getting sick or dying from lead poisoning from eating lead-shot game. There isn't one.

 

[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?

Whether it be COVID,

Thanks for your contribution.

I’ll add the origins of COVID to my farcical list

 

[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?

Edited a week later to include the below due to multiple references in this thread:

Were the origins of Covid 19 semi-natural such as being spread at a wet market, or was it a lab leak from the other side the street?

Were the initial response to the Covid 19 pandemic by institutions and individuals appropriate based on information available at the time, or were there alternative motives and agendas leading to bad policies and behaviors?

Can avian scavengers suffer from lead poisoning as a result of lead bullet fragment ingestion? If so, what level of mortality should we consider acceptable?

Is it ok for hunters/shooters with concerns over the effect of lead primers or lead on human or avian scavenger health proactively take steps to reduce potential impacts? Or does doing so give fuel to anti hunters the anti gun lobby, helping curtail or eliminate rights via back door bans?

Should this topic be studied further due to the lack of well designed research? Or should we rely on common sense and examples of positive anecdotal health outcomes?

Can we trust the current state of scientific and public health research as a whole? Are root cause of flaws limited to funding sources or political ideology?

Are current medical guidelines as to blood lead levels in different age groups overly generous or not generous enough? And does guidelines changing over time reflect updated understanding acute or chronic effects of lead exposure, or does it reflect a leftist agenda of curtailing rights?

And apparently, is it acceptable to currently or in the past having driven a Toyota Corolla?

Lots of good discussion here. Can’t believe how well we sorted out this topic while also asking lots of great questions that can addressed and debated dispassionately in a hunting enthusiast forum. See my updated list above.

 

[K9kodi]

I’m trying to catch up. Lots to read. My father few years back came down the cancers in the form of acute myeloid leukemia. The actual starting point I dunno. I do know his retirement job was as an indoor firearms range and as a manager he maintained the filtration system and was always working around the bullet catchment systems: anyhowwwwwwww


When I was reading of lead particles left in wild game after a harvest, was it speaking of carcasses tested where bullets provided a clean pass through or where the body of the animal captured the lead slug?

 

[Pharmseller]

I'm only going to make one more post here as I recognized long ago it was futile to continue arguing with those incapable of critical thinking.
As a clinician and scientist, I unfortunately realized decades ago that the entire scientific community, from high-level govt agencies such as the CDC, FDA, DEA, NIH, etc down to university "researchers" was corrupted by big Pharma and those with a political agenda. Studies published in what were once reputable journals became garbage that provided conclusions and observations that were not only unsubstantiated by the results of the study but, at times, were directly contradicted by the study data. Nonetheless, these so-called "researchers" would lie and present conclusions based on an agenda because of either their personal ideologies or because the funding for the study came from another corrupt organization who needed a result to drive sales. Whether it be COVID, man's contributions to climate change, or lead poisoning, the vast majority of "studies" supporting the claims not only were unsubstantiated garbage but were outright lies.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, the internet opened up a forum for so-called "experts" to come on and make long-winded posts with really nothing to substantiate their arguments other than their "interpretation" of the study's conclusions that they keep demanding that others read. There are two types of these posters--those towing the line and perpetuating the agenda at all costs and "sheep" who refuse to acknowledge their own incapacity for critical thinking and admit they were wrong. Fortunately, many people awakened to the corruption of "science" during COVID but several "sheep" remain. Although I haven't read each and every post in this 12-pg long thread, I suspect that those who recognize the truth outweigh those bloviators who are incapable of deciphering good vs bad science and who feel the need to defend their ignorance or their agenda at all costs.
In many cases, common sense prevails as is the case with this debate. Ask yourself if you have ever known or even heard of someone getting sick or dying from lead poisoning from eating lead-shot game. There isn't one.

I quit reading after “Big Pharma.”




P

 

[ElPollo]

That wasn’t the OP question. The OP question was is there any documented evidence of transfer.

This is where the science hasn’t filled in the boxes yet. Can we find lead in processed game meat? Yes, but we don’t have data demonstrating that the levels of lead in game meat result in a significant risk to humans from eating it. My take from the literature is that there are multiple sources for human exposure to lead and that eating game meat isn’t one I would be particularly concerned about if you are trimming and tossing the 4-6” radius of the wound channel. This is one of the reasons that I don’t take shoulder shots.

 

[Trial153]

I quit reading after “Big Pharma.”




P

not to be confused with Little Pharma

 

[ElPollo]

I'm only going to make one more post here as I recognized long ago it was futile to continue arguing with those incapable of critical thinking.
As a clinician and scientist, I unfortunately realized decades ago that the entire scientific community, from high-level govt agencies such as the CDC, FDA, DEA, NIH, etc down to university "researchers" was corrupted by big Pharma and those with a political agenda. Studies published in what were once reputable journals became garbage that provided conclusions and observations that were not only unsubstantiated by the results of the study but, at times, were directly contradicted by the study data. Nonetheless, these so-called "researchers" would lie and present conclusions based on an agenda because of either their personal ideologies or because the funding for the study came from another corrupt organization who needed a result to drive sales. Whether it be COVID, man's contributions to climate change, or lead poisoning, the vast majority of "studies" supporting the claims not only were unsubstantiated garbage but were outright lies.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, the internet opened up a forum for so-called "experts" to come on and make long-winded posts with really nothing to substantiate their arguments other than their "interpretation" of the study's conclusions that they keep demanding that others read. There are two types of these posters--those towing the line and perpetuating the agenda at all costs and "sheep" who refuse to acknowledge their own incapacity for critical thinking and admit they were wrong. Fortunately, many people awakened to the corruption of "science" during COVID but several "sheep" remain. Although I haven't read each and every post in this 12-pg long thread, I suspect that those who recognize the truth outweigh those bloviators who are incapable of deciphering good vs bad science and who feel the need to defend their ignorance or their agenda at all costs.
In many cases, common sense prevails as is the case with this debate. Ask yourself if you have ever known or even heard of someone getting sick or dying from lead poisoning from eating lead-shot game. There isn't one.

Does that qualify as a manifesto? However, I agree with your conclusion.