Lead ingestion health risks

[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?

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.

 

[Bluefish]

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.

one way it could be tested would be something like the Greenland study, where they are checking lead levels before and after eating wild harvested birds, but have two groups, one steel shot, the other lead shot. Same could be done with venison shot with lead and with copper. This may be tougher if a locker is used the meat has to be kept separate to ensure it’s not cross contaminated.

Imho I don’t think it will happen as the desire is to ban lead ammunition and showing that it doesn’t transmit from shot to elevated blood level doesn’t fit the agenda. Easier to show that lead is bad and if you eat lots of lead, blood levels are higher. Thus using lead bullets are bad, even if there is no testing to show that it is more than correlation.

 

[JGRaider]

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.

Outstanding, and I agree 100%.

 

[ElPollo]

one way it could be tested would be something like the Greenland study, where they are checking lead levels before and after eating wild harvested birds, but have two groups, one steel shot, the other lead shot. Same could be done with venison shot with lead and with copper. This may be tougher if a locker is used the meat has to be kept separate to ensure it’s not cross contaminated.

Imho I don’t think it will happen as the desire is to ban lead ammunition and showing that it doesn’t transmit from shot to elevated blood level doesn’t fit the agenda. Easier to show that lead is bad and if you eat lots of lead, blood levels are higher. Thus using lead bullets are bad, even if there is no testing to show that it is more than correlation.

On the first point, it would probably take an isotope analysis to sort out the sources of the lead.

I don’t disagree on the second part.

 

[HandgunHTR]

If ol' A4 had read the studies for himself and actually understood the results, he probably would have quit a while ago.
See below for my parsing.

Again, these are not my data - and I am simply relaying what I read and letting people read through it and develop thier thoughts. As such, I cannot answer why or why not the did something in the study.

• Hunt - there is WAY more in the study than just this next statement but this was the conclusion statement within the study.

We conclude that people risk exposure to bioavailable lead from bullet fragments when they eat venison from deer killed with standard lead-based rifle bullets and processed under normal procedures.

Notice it says "risk exposure". Not that you will actually be exposed. They also didn't go so far as to actually quantify what the risk is in terms of percentages or anything like that. All they had were percentages of the game meat that they tested had lead particles in them. Also, their use of the term "bioavailable" is highly suspect as they did not show how they determined that. There are other studies that have proven that most lead alloys from shot and bullets is not bioavailable in human digestive tracts.

• Johansen: This is a bird study however it showed a direct correlation between the lead in the bird and transmission to humans. The OP didn't specify the type of lead (rifle or shot) but lead is lead.

There is a clear relationship between the number of bird meals and the blood lead concentration of the participants in this study, which also shows that eiders are more important as a lead source than murres. These findings support our conclusion from an earlier study of lead in murre and eider meat, indicating that lead shot used to kill these birds are an important lead source to people in Greenland

So, they concluded that the more bird meals that the study participants ate, the higher their blood lead levels were, however the ones that ate more eiders had higher levels than those that ate murres, even though both were killed with shotguns. But then it goes on to say that it was due to the lead shot used to kill the birds? That sounds like they just found what they wanted to find and stopped rather than try to figure out why the folks that ate more eiders had higher levels than the ones that ate more murres. Could it be that the eiders were picking up lead from the environment rather than the shot. Or do eiders take more shots to bring down than murres. That must be it.

• Bjermo,

This study does not directly say that lead shot animals contributed. It was included due to a few folks saying that there is no link to side affects of health issue. This study talks about the adverse affects.

As I tried to get him to admit much earlier in this thread, they didn't actually find anything, so they just put in a bunch of stuff that says bioavailable lead is bad. Very similar to the CDC paper that is readily available via Google. Glad they spent all that money to clear that up.

• Linboe - When I looked up the original paper it came up as a stand alone abstract and I didn't want to pay for the full paper, its a quick read if you want to go read it. Ill quote it since I didn't include it in a previous post.

They looked at Moose shot with lead rifle bullets stating "consumers eating a moderate meat serving (2 g kg(-1) bw), a single serving would give a lead intake of 11 µg kg(-1) bw on average, with maximum of 220 µg kg(-1) bw. The results indicate that the intake of meat from big game shot with lead-based bullets imposes a significant contribution to the total human lead exposure."

Again, it talks about exposure to lead alloys found in bullets and then goes on to tell us that lead is bad again. It does nothing to show what that increased exposure actually did. It is also interesting to me that they only tested ground meat and then made their determinations based on how much lead they found in the ground meat that they tested. So, you are saying that eating a 2kg serving of ham steaks, I am going to get up to 220 ug/kg of lead? Yeah, I don't think so. It also did no testing on common bullet and/or shot alloys to determine the bioavailable amount so they could somewhat accurately determine how much of that lead eaten would make it in to the blood stream.

Again, none of this information changes my thoughts on eating wild game. It simply answers the OP Question

Go read them and answer it for yourself

With that, I believe I will bow out of this thread.

 

[Article 4]

@HandgunHTR
Welcome to finally having a somewhat half baked argument

12 pages into this thread and a number of comments by you to this point all with you not reading the studies. So were all the other comments False musings and discontent or were you just parroting someone else’s comments?

Then to make what you think are good points, add a misinterpreted line or two from a study, and pass it off as your own epiphany. Plagiarism is something you do well. Did you have any original thoughts to share?

Lead is lead. It’s one element. Pb. Whether it comes from a rifle bullet or shot. One bird or another. A moose or a pink floating unicorn. That it transmits from animals to humans in any amount is clear and inarguable Period dot. End of story.

Did it dawn on you that the reason we are even talking about it rather than believing “it doesn’t exist” as someone stated, is because the studies exist. You could not misinterpret the data if it was non existent. Do you understand what exposure means?

Then you wanna bow out as if your thoughts are so astute that they cannot be refuted. How “blue state” of you

Keep to opinions. your ability to read and interpret data and get someone to “admit” something that you poorly argue or incorrectly understand with any kind of non bias approach or personal vendetta is not your strong point

 

[Article 4]

Lead doesn’t transfer. ever. no study has ever proven it. Completely false.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/health/Johansen_et_al_2005.

For those of you who don’t want to read the paper Ill include the the page outlining it in a pic attached.

Cannot wait to see what kind of personal fire I take for this.

 

[ElPollo]

Lead doesn’t transfer. ever. no study has ever proven it. Completely false.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/health/Johansen_et_al_2005.

For those of you who don’t want to read the paper Ill include the the page outlining it in a pic attached.

Cannot wait to see what kind of personal fire I take for this.

You are missing some critical issues in this discussion. This is not intended to be “fire”. I am just trying to explain some of the complexities of the issue.

The discussion is about the risks of eating lead fragments in big game. Waterfowl and other birds are a whole different issue. There is evidence of inflated BLL in waterfowl, raptors and corvids, but the sources of that lead are not always clear. If you do a search for heavy metals in marine mammals you’ll find a pile of papers that document levels of lead and mercury that are thought to come from industrial pollution. That pollution comes in chemical forms that are much more bioavailable than metallic lead. Your Greenland bird eaters are also eating marine mammals and the birds are eating the same stuff as the marine mammals. There is no evidence that the marine mammals are getting inflated BLL from eating metallic lead from ammunition. The paper just references a correlation. The birds are getting killed with lead shot and people who eat more bird have higher BLL. It ignores the other factors and doesn’t examine what the actual source of the lead in the hunters blood is.

Your comment “lead is lead” also ignores a lot of chemistry and biology. Lead oxide, lead acetate and other forms are much more toxic than metallic lead because they are in forms that are soluble and easier to absorb by most living creatures. Metallic lead has to be converted by the body to form that is soluble. That process is inefficient, so much of that metallic lead passes through without being uptaken by the body.

In addition, not all animals deal with metallic lead the same. Birds are more succeptible to it because many have gizzards that physically grind the metallic lead into smaller particles. Smaller particles mean more surface area for reaction. Raptors, vultures and corvids have much more acidic digestive systems to dissolve bones. That lower PH also increases the potential for uptake of metallic lead. These are all reasons why lead shot is regulated for waterfowl and in waterfowl management areas.

All of the papers that I’ve seen on the risks of lead from ammunition ignore the other sources of potential lead contamination from industrial sources and bioaccumulation of industrial lead in the environment. They look solely at the correlation of the presence of metallic lead in meat and the BLL of people eating it. The initial paper cited in this discussion is one of the few that actually asks what the potential impact of eating meat with those levels of lead might be and it largely dismisses it as a potential health risk.

I want to be clear, that I am not arguing that metallic lead is great for us and we should all eat some. The point is that lead is out there in the environment and that metallic lead in game meat is a relatively low risk that can be mitigated. The highest lead and mercury levels I have ever heard of in a person were from an Ojibway fellow I used to work with who used to love to eat big pike and catfish. That is a documented risk for lead and mercury exposure and there are recommended levels of consumption to mitigate those risks, particularly for pregnant women.

So in closing, the lead issue is complicated. There are lots of sources for lead in the environment and they vary in terms of risk. There are lots of things I worry about in this day and age. Lead in game meat is one I used to worry about but don’t anymore. I avoid shooting the big muscle groups as much as possible. I butcher my own animals and trim and discard the meat in the vicinity of the wound channel. And I don’t worry about my family eating that meat.