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.

 

[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.