Lead ingestion health risks

[RockAndSage]

It’s important to remember that “science”is a bunch of individuals. There isn’t any single oversight board. There are no annual discussions of what the goals are or what the political stance is on anything. It’s a bunch of nerds working independently who get feedback from their peers on their work at fairly long intervals. Science is also based on assumptions. And as “they” say, all assumptions are wrong. They are a placeholder until you get more information. The take home is that it’s not about whether you can trust science. Science is always something that requires scrutiny and interpretation. Most scientists would much rather tell you what they don’t know than what they do know. Science is also iterative and slow. But if there is a group you should be untrustworthy of, its the advocates and the policy makers.

You're right and not at the same time here.

Yes, "science" is a bunch of individuals. But those individuals were also matriculated through institutions where their worldviews and careers are impacted by cultural biases, which they internalize to greater or lesser degrees. Whether in grad school, post-grad, working in industry, government, or public policy, the relevant institutional culture of "they" is a very real thing with very real impacts on "science" - especially on any subject with an environmental or political bent.

Advocates and policy makers - yes, instant distrust until and unless proven otherwise. And - those who fund the science.

If someone does not know the institutions an individual scientist comes out of, and who is funding the science, then that "science" is simply not vetted.

 

[Hoopleheader]

^ Read this again.

Now...

Read your reply again:



I'm going to assume this was an unintentional straw-man argument, given the absurdity of suggesting I was saying that.





Yes, you are. Obama's director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued an order banning lead ammo from all federal wildlife refuges, the day before President Trump was first sworn in. It was rescinded by the Trump Administration. Then in 2022, Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth introduced legislation to do the same thing, and the Biden Administration also attempted to do the same thing. This covers it well.




My take is that the discussion was primarily oriented around the validity of the science on the subject - and it absolutely bears great danger in being misused as part of a political agenda by the left, whereby salami-slice bans on lead ammo are themselves part of a broader strategy in banning guns. The exact comment of ElPollos that I responded to dealt with the issues of the science, which are equally important whether talking about personal health or any "science" being weaponized against hunters.

This stuff matters.

Correct assumption on your part, I had no ill intent.

Appreciate the policy education.

 

[ElPollo]

You're right and not at the same time here.

Yes, "science" is a bunch of individuals. But those individuals were also matriculated through institutions where their worldviews and careers are impacted by cultural biases, which they internalize to greater or lesser degrees. Whether in grad school, post-grad, working in industry, government, or public policy, the relevant institutional culture of "they" is a very real thing with very real impacts on "science" - especially on any subject with an environmental or political bent.

Advocates and policy makers - yes, instant distrust until and unless proven otherwise. And - those who fund the science.

If someone does not know the institutions an individual scientist comes out of, and who is funding the science, then that "science" is simply not vetted.

Yeah, I disagree. I know some really conservative scientists and consider myself to be an educated, well-travelled, gun-toting, hillbilly. The world is very politically divided these days and it’s dangerous to make assumptions about what tribe people align themselves with. Having been both in the research and policy worlds, I would say you have less to worry about with scientists than you think. Most of them are frankly too autistic to be corrupted by funding. Folks like that are not capable of lying, no matter what their academic lineage is. Advocates and policy people seem to be more morally fluid and financially driven.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yeah, I disagree. I know some really conservative scientists and consider myself to be an educated, well-travelled, gun-toting, hillbilly. The world is very politically divided these days and it’s dangerous to make assumptions about what tribe people align themselves with. Having been both in the research and policy worlds, I would say you have less to worry about with scientists than you think. Most of them are frankly too autistic to be corrupted by funding. Folks like that are not capable of lying, no matter what their academic lineage is. Advocates and policy people seem to be more morally fluid and financially driven.

I work and have worked with scientists and Doctors quite a bit, and my experience and the current writ large landscape in America mirrors @RockAndSage thoughts.

 

[BlueJay]

I work and have worked with scientists and Doctors quite a bit, and my experience and the current writ large landscape in America mirrors @RockAndSage thoughts.

I’m a practicing biomedical scientist and have been around them most of my adult life. You’re both right, it’s just a matter of degree and specifics. Most scientific topics aren’t political and the majority of good studies aren’t influenced by funders, that’s not really how grants and study sections work, at least if we’re talking about basic biological science. On the other hand, there are a number of hot button issues that have been hijacked by advocacy groups, and yes pharma/biased actors.

 

[Dave C.]

Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy

Hello Kettle, this is the pot calling.

 

[Dave C.]

I quit reading after “Big Pharma.”




P

Can't look in the mirror, eh? I couldn't either if I was part of an industry that was directly attributable to so much illness and death of innocent people.

 

[ElPollo]

Can't look in the mirror, eh? I couldn't either if I was part of an industry that was directly attributable to so much illness and death of innocent people.

Do you feel better now?

 

[Pharmseller]

Do you feel better now?

Everybody needs a bogeyman.

I’m glad to serve in the role.

And most of the people I’ve killed weren’t innocent.

P

 

[Pharmseller]

History and definition​

According to Steven Novella, the use of terminology such as Big Pharma has come to connote a demonized form of the pharmaceutical industry, described in an emotional fashion, which exists disconnected from the real-life complexity of business history.[5] Professor of writing Robert Blaskiewicz has written that conspiracy theorists use the term Big Pharma as "shorthand for an abstract entity comprising corporations, regulators, NGOs, politicians, and often physicians, all with a finger in the trillion-dollar prescription pharmaceutical pie".[1]

According to Blaskiewicz, the Big Pharma conspiracy theory has four classic traits: first, the assumption that the conspiracy is perpetrated by a small malevolent cabal; secondly, the belief that the public at large is ignorant of the truth; thirdly, that its believers treat lack of evidence as evidence; and finally, that the arguments deployed in support of the theory are irrational, misconceived, or otherwise mistaken.[1]

 

[ElPollo]

History and definition​

According to Steven Novella, the use of terminology such as Big Pharma has come to connote a demonized form of the pharmaceutical industry, described in an emotional fashion, which exists disconnected from the real-life complexity of business history.[5] Professor of writing Robert Blaskiewicz has written that conspiracy theorists use the term Big Pharma as "shorthand for an abstract entity comprising corporations, regulators, NGOs, politicians, and often physicians, all with a finger in the trillion-dollar prescription pharmaceutical pie".[1]

According to Blaskiewicz, the Big Pharma conspiracy theory has four classic traits: first, the assumption that the conspiracy is perpetrated by a small malevolent cabal; secondly, the belief that the public at large is ignorant of the truth; thirdly, that its believers treat lack of evidence as evidence; and finally, that the arguments deployed in support of the theory are irrational, misconceived, or otherwise mistaken.[1]

Sorry this is not directed at you. But what does big pharma have to do with the effects of lead in game meat?

 

[Pharmseller]

Sorry this is not directed at you. But what does big pharma have to do with the effects of lead in game meat?

You know, usually I’d rise to the occasion and write some amusing bullshit about animal testing (usually rhesus monkeys, Dutch white rabbits, or beagles, not kidding) and lead, with some obscure (hence hilarious) connection between them, but I’m just too tired tonight.

So, long story short, not a damn thing.





P

 

[Fireflyfishing]

I sprinkle lead and COVID on my cheerios in the morning.

And you’re still here…

 

[Dave C.]

History and definition​

According to Steven Novella, the use of terminology such as Big Pharma has come to connote a demonized form of the pharmaceutical industry, described in an emotional fashion, which exists disconnected from the real-life complexity of business history.[5] Professor of writing Robert Blaskiewicz has written that conspiracy theorists use the term Big Pharma as "shorthand for an abstract entity comprising corporations, regulators, NGOs, politicians, and often physicians, all with a finger in the trillion-dollar prescription pharmaceutical pie".[1]

According to Blaskiewicz, the Big Pharma conspiracy theory has four classic traits: first, the assumption that the conspiracy is perpetrated by a small malevolent cabal; secondly, the belief that the public at large is ignorant of the truth; thirdly, that its believers treat lack of evidence as evidence; and finally, that the arguments deployed in support of the theory are irrational, misconceived, or otherwise mistaken.[1]

Straight from a world-class nobody. Don't worry, the nation is already waking up and recognizing that this is not only untrue, but a ridiculously clueless outright lie. Must suck knowing your industry is about to take an epic financial hit as the American people finally see just how corrupt you all are.

 

[eric1115]

@fngTony please feel free to lock this thread if you see fit. I am super happy with the information and respectful discussion in the first ⅔ of it, and hope it can be a good source of info for people who are interested in figuring out what the real risks of lead are or are not. I haven't seen this all gathered together and evaluated this way anywhere else on the Internet, and would love to have this not turn into another 30+ page pissing match and hot dog measuring contest that adds nothing to the original topic.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

We are four pages in and people are arguing that eating lead is OK.

Eating lead is bad. Let's not pretend that there is no risk potential here. If the risk doesn't bother someone because of how they process game meat that's fine. But it's unlikely there is no risk.

The point they’re likely making is it’s WELL KNOWN that if you eat a chunk of lead it will pass through and be expelled out the old shoot. Your body isn’t dissolving and absorbing a lead bullet anymore than it would a rock you ate. Now factor in the chunks of lead you may eat in game meat are 1. small and 2. not a daily occurrence the risk of increased blood lead levels is nill. So no harm done in eating a lead bullet fragment. No one is likely arguing eating lead is good for you.

Now, if you’re eating or breathing lead dust or lead paint which is highly digestible you’re going to be in trouble. Lead bullets aren’t exceptionally digestible. This topic is consistently WAY overblown.

 

[fwafwow]

Sorry I missed this fiasco. (Well, maybe not.)

• The 4 studies absolutely and without question found direct correlation.

I find many people read right over documents and points - your responses lead me to believe you had done the same. I posted the studies. Of course I read them. In fact, I am one of the few people that actually provided more the wild opinion.

The above demonstrate (at least to me) that you skipped over post #174 by @Bluefish. If one doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation, you will not get as much from reading any studies. https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

(And I acknowledge I'm now replying to a "Guest" - not sure what happened.)

 

[fngTony]

@fngTony please feel free to lock this thread if you see fit. I am super happy with the information and respectful discussion in the first ⅔ of it, and hope it can be a good source of info for people who are interested in figuring out what the real risks of lead are or are not. I haven't seen this all gathered together and evaluated this way anywhere else on the Internet, and would love to have this not turn into another 30+ page pissing match and hot dog measuring contest that adds nothing to the original topic.

I will take a look at it after work and consider unlocking it. Maybe it just needs some time to settle down?