The future of Lead

[Slowtrollr]

I want what ur smoking.

 

[fwafwow]

This is a secondary source which cites primary sources that have done independent research studies on this topic. You can find the original studies by using the information from the secondary source that I linked. It is also perfectly acceptable in science to do these types of comparison studies. They do not have to feed people lead. They can find people who are already eating it and compare to people who aren’t, while controlling for as many variables as possible. In fact, all medical studies are done this way, to varying degrees, because no two people are true replicates, so there’s always outside factors that could affect conclusions. So there’s always a chance conclusions could be wrong. But that’s life and that’s why we use statistics and careful experimental design.

Thanks for the information

 

[amassi]

This is a secondary source which cites primary sources that have done independent research studies on this topic. You can find the original studies by using the information from the secondary source that I linked. It is also perfectly acceptable in science to do these types of comparison studies. They do not have to feed people lead. They can find people who are already eating it and compare to people who aren’t, while controlling for as many variables as possible. In fact, all medical studies are done this way, to varying degrees, because no two people are true replicates, so there’s always outside factors that could affect conclusions. So there’s always a chance conclusions could be wrong. But that’s life and that’s why we use statistics and careful experimental design.

No it isn't perfectly acceptable- it's the rampant misuse of using correlative studies to make broad sweeping claims(that the study wasnt looking for).
Correlations studies are not experiments and do not control variables.
They've been so perverted over the last 20 years and are responsible for quackery like "dr" Oz saying wine cures cancer, dogs don't like hugs and lead shot meat is poisoning your children.

Real science sees the correlations, controls variables and develops a causation study that is tested, repeatable, and peer reviewed.


Link one single study, even if it's behind an academic pay wall, where there was a causation research study done on humans, not pigs or rats or birds, with a couple hundred to thousands of participants, controlled for environmental exposure from lead paint, leaded gasoline, lead smelting, fishing et el that were fed lead shot meat.

Bonus points if you can find one that wasn't paid for by some raptor conservancy.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Campaignhat]

No it isn't perfectly acceptable- it's the rampant misuse of using correlative studies to make broad sweeping claims(that the study wasnt looking for).
Correlations studies are not experiments and do not control variables.
They've been so perverted over the last 20 years and are responsible for quackery like "dr" Oz saying wine cures cancer, dogs don't like hugs and lead shot meat is poisoning your children.

Real science sees the correlations, controls variables and develops a causation study that is tested, repeatable, and peer reviewed.


Link one single study, even if it's behind an academic pay wall, where there was a causation research study done on humans, not pigs or rats or birds, with a couple hundred to thousands of participants, controlled for environmental exposure from lead paint, leaded gasoline, lead smelting, fishing et el that were fed lead shot meat.

Bonus points if you can find one that wasn't paid for by some raptor conservancy.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Hey, it’s totally ok man. You’ve got your mind made up already and that’s not going to change with any amount of supporting evidence. You’re human and that’s human nature. Most people aren’t scientists and many of them distrust science as a whole and won’t believe anything labelled as such. It’s why we’re killing our planet, dying of preventable infections, and believing in weird things like Bigfoot. It’s ok; we can still be friends.

As a scientist (M.S. Biology) and as a former college educator (college biology), though, I feel compelled to make the point that proper science works by forming a question, obtaining data, and then forming a conclusion based on the what the data tells you. It is quite improper to start with whatever conclusion you’d like to believe and then deny/ignore any good evidence to the contrary. Sadly, this is what most people do, whether it’s vaccines, climate change, evolution, etc. My conclusions on lead were reached by evaluating evidence first, then deciding that, given a choice, I’d prefer a lower level of risk than a higher level of risk.

You clearly don’t understand how research works when involving humans. If you suspect a substance could adversely affect the health of humans, you don’t determine that by exposing humans to it. Ethical constraints forbid it. You don’t expose a bunch of people to radiation and then see if they get cancer. If you did, you’d be culpable and it would be akin to murder. This sort of experimentation is what a lot of “scientists” did in Nazi concentration camps and it didn’t work out so well for the test subjects. But yet you seem to be asking for the intentional lead poisoning of people before you’ll be convinced.

But you CAN find people who were otherwise exposed to something (like hunters eating game) and watch for effects. You can find people who were exposed to radiation and see if they have a higher incidence of cancers compared to those with lower exposures to radiation. Then you can use animals as a surrogate for humans (like feeding pigs lead tainted meat) in a more controlled experiment and watch for effects. Then, these two types of experiments combined can tell you something, especially when both types steer you towards the same conclusion.

I will say no more about it.

 

[fwafwow]

No it isn't perfectly acceptable- it's the rampant misuse of using correlative studies to make broad sweeping claims(that the study wasnt looking for).
Correlations studies are not experiments and do not control variables.
They've been so perverted over the last 20 years and are responsible for quackery like "dr" Oz saying wine cures cancer, dogs don't like hugs and lead shot meat is poisoning your children.

Real science sees the correlations, controls variables and develops a causation study that is tested, repeatable, and peer reviewed.


Link one single study, even if it's behind an academic pay wall, where there was a causation research study done on humans, not pigs or rats or birds, with a couple hundred to thousands of participants, controlled for environmental exposure from lead paint, leaded gasoline, lead smelting, fishing et el that were fed lead shot meat.

Bonus points if you can find one that wasn't paid for by some raptor conservancy.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I agree with much of what you posted. Correlation =/= causation. But if there is correlation, further studies are merited on a topic. Getting those studies done can pose practical challenges - funding and methods. This is true for nutrition and medical issues.

I think what @Campaignhat hat is saying is not that lead in animals is proven to be a problem, but that he's uncomfortable enough with the correlation to not risk it for him and his family. YMMV.

While correlation doesn't prove causation, I think the absence of correlation probably indicates an absence of causation. Can anyone point to studies that do not have even any correlation between lead exposure and health risks?

 

[amassi]

I agree with much of what you posted. Correlation =/= causation. But if there is correlation, further studies are merited on a topic. Getting those studies done can pose practical challenges - funding and methods. This is true for nutrition and medical issues.

I think what @Campaignhat hat is saying is not that lead in animals is proven to be a problem, but that he's uncomfortable enough with the correlation to not risk it for him and his family. YMMV.

While correlation doesn't prove causation, I think the absence of correlation probably indicates an absence of causation. Can anyone point to studies that do not have even any correlation between lead exposure and health risks?

The studies on lead exposure are from inhaling particles not from ingesting.
Elevated lead in blood is very bad, this is indisputable, has been tested and retested. It's the reason lead was removed from gasoline, pipes, paint et el.
Not one single study has been done on humans ingesting lead from bullets.
The practical issue as you pointed out is no scientist or Dr is going to try and intentionally poison a study group so they have to do population studies that are shaky at best, and in the case of hunting bullets have been perverted to try and cripple an industry.
Lucky or unlucky depending on how you look at it, Californians are all too familiar with bad science being used to drive a lead ban.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[amassi]

Also what @Campaignhat said is that they read lots of good studies on the effects of eating lead and it's detriment. As so far they've been unable to produce a single study.
In that vain, I've read dozens of studies proving that eating less is totally harmless

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Karl86]

It is estimated that 7 million rounds of small arms ammunition was fired at the battle of Gettysburg.

The standard ammunition present would have been the US minie ball, weighing in at 1.5 ounces. This comes out to 21,333.33 rounds per ton of lead.
This gives us 328 tons of lead. 328 tons would be the extreme end, so, for the sake of arguement lets say the amount fired was 250 to 300 tons.

This is from ONE 3 day battle. It is also safe to say that the vast majority of these rounds fired would have fallen into places where they would have been subject to rainwater and thus erosion.

Musket balls are a common find at many many of these sites across the nation. I dont believe any of these sites are SuperFund sites.

The use of lead in industrial applications in paint, fuel(currently still in use for airplanes) is imo, far different than hard cast lead used in ammunition.
Lead particulates from industry can be injested easily and introduced into the bloodstream causing ill effects.

Keep in mind, the example i cite is ONE battle, in a 5 year war.
100% lead ammunition. This is not to mention the fighting that occured in these areas during 1812, 1776 to 1782, and numerous other conflicts.

A ban on lead ammunition would be a huge 'tax' on law abiding citizens that, in reality are doing very little harm. Firearms and ammo sales would most likely plummet, cause huge funding issues, as stated above.

Just some food for thought.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Rich M]

I saw references to cdc, preventable virus, vaxcine, and climate change all tied in here. Cdc locked folks in their homes for no reason, one mask/two mask/no mask, etc. funny how the “science” used fear mongering to control the population with bad information using vaxs that some organizations had copyrighted years before. Real science died a long time ago, especially if college level teachers are pushing cow turd quality studies and govt produced propoganda.

And im supposed to jump up and do whatever they say? LoL!

 

[roosiebull]

I forgot about that part.

I wonder if it has an affect, probably does. I remember a thread on here awhile back that got pretty heated.

I dont want to kill a bunch of raptors, but I'm also not a big fan of copper. It's worked well for me, but I have had better results with my standard bullets.

I was thinking, "How on earth will I poison any other animals if I never lose the animals I shoot.?" Meaning, they don't run off and get eaten. But my carcass is always left there and sometimes I find the bullet, sometimes I don't.

And last year I watched a golden eagle try to kill mule deer at tree line. So I know they are there and will eat the deer.

Maybe I'll just stick to archery

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

The most concerning thing to me is shooting sage rats… almost everyone uses a 17hmr these days for high volume rat shooting, they are the best cartridge for the task, part of them being great is how frangible the bullets are, there is no guessing if you hit or miss, a .22lr will leave you wondering a lot, the 17 turns them inside out and gives you a very audible “whop!”

The downside is, you drive by a pivot that evening that you burned 400 rounds in that morning and you see raptors everywhere cleaning up the rats… it seems like the very worst thing I can think of for raptors ingesting lead, yet there are no non lead options I know of, and certainly not readily available options… it seems worse than using lead for waterfowl or anything else, way worse than big game hunting with lead, yet I have never heard it discussed…

Where I go to shoot rats in the spring is also where I see the most raptors besides maybe SE AK where bald eagles are the most common bird of any kind it seems.

In eastern Oregon at my sis in law’s, I see tons of bald eagles, hawks, and golden eagles, drive down the road they live on and you’ll literally see 20-30 raptors in a 5 mile drive… it seems like 17hmr ammo would be the priority for creating non lead options, I would buy it, would be much better for small game hunting too, because if you shoot a cotton tail or big gray squirrel with a 17, you better avoid bone or there won’t be much left to eat, for the size, they are insanely destructive, even on bigger stuff like coyotes, those tiny 17gr bullets flatten stuff (reminds me of the TMK’s in a .223) how does such a tiny projectile cause so much destruction?

 

[FLATHEAD]

I saw references to cdc, preventable virus, vaxcine, and climate change all tied in here. Cdc locked folks in their homes for no reason, one mask/two mask/no mask, etc. funny how the “science” used fear mongering to control the population with bad information using vaxs that some organizations had copyrighted years before. Real science died a long time ago, especially if college level teachers are pushing cow turd quality studies and govt produced propoganda.

And im supposed to jump up and do whatever they say? LoL!

Because they say so.

 

[roosiebull]

Hey, it’s totally ok man. You’ve got your mind made up already and that’s not going to change with any amount of supporting evidence. You’re human and that’s human nature. Most people aren’t scientists and many of them distrust science as a whole and won’t believe anything labelled as such. It’s why we’re killing our planet, dying of preventable infections, and believing in weird things like Bigfoot. It’s ok; we can still be friends.

As a scientist (M.S. Biology) and as a former college educator (college biology), though, I feel compelled to make the point that proper science works by forming a question, obtaining data, and then forming a conclusion based on the what the data tells you. It is quite improper to start with whatever conclusion you’d like to believe and then deny/ignore any good evidence to the contrary. Sadly, this is what most people do, whether it’s vaccines, climate change, evolution, etc. My conclusions on lead were reached by evaluating evidence first, then deciding that, given a choice, I’d prefer a lower level of risk than a higher level of risk.

You clearly don’t understand how research works when involving humans. If you suspect a substance could adversely affect the health of humans, you don’t determine that by exposing humans to it. Ethical constraints forbid it. You don’t expose a bunch of people to radiation and then see if they get cancer. If you did, you’d be culpable and it would be akin to murder. This sort of experimentation is what a lot of “scientists” did in Nazi concentration camps and it didn’t work out so well for the test subjects. But yet you seem to be asking for the intentional lead poisoning of people before you’ll be convinced.

But you CAN find people who were otherwise exposed to something (like hunters eating game) and watch for effects. You can find people who were exposed to radiation and see if they have a higher incidence of cancers compared to those with lower exposures to radiation. Then you can use animals as a surrogate for humans (like feeding pigs lead tainted meat) in a more controlled experiment and watch for effects. Then, these two types of experiments combined can tell you something, especially when both types steer you towards the same conclusion.

I will say no more about it.

The problem with most studies done in this day and age is that they all seem to be agenda driven rather than trying to actually find the facts, especially in this context (hunting/fishing related studies)

Another thing that forms mistrust in studies is people in the same field, working for the same organizations, don’t/won’t collaborate with each other seeking answers, they are afraid of losing their notoriety or effecting their narrative, this is a good example of what the world has become… I was naïve to this until working with ODFW for several years and asking questions… 2 people doing related studies don’t compare notes or share their findings because they just want to finish their study and have it published, they don’t seem to care about the truth

I guess it’s pretty obvious when you have 2 special interest groups both doing studies to support their opposing narratives, and both sides coincidentally find evidence that supports the narrative they are trying to push… how is that possible? That’s why people don’t trust science as much anymore, they have way muddied the waters themselves and still want people to believe them… science doesn’t lie, but those conducting the studies do, science is no longer about seeking answers, it’s just a tool to support a narrative, which is stupid.

Science has become so untrustworthy now, we don’t even know what a woman is, haha, if you don’t believe me, ask the folks currently running the country… how are we supposed to understand women if we can’t even identify one?

 

[amassi]

Hey, it’s totally ok man. You’ve got your mind made up already and that’s not going to change with any amount of supporting evidence. You’re human and that’s human nature. Most people aren’t scientists and many of them distrust science as a whole and won’t believe anything labelled as such. It’s why we’re killing our planet, dying of preventable infections, and believing in weird things like Bigfoot. It’s ok; we can still be friends.

As a scientist (M.S. Biology) and as a former college educator (college biology), though, I feel compelled to make the point that proper science works by forming a question, obtaining data, and then forming a conclusion based on the what the data tells you. It is quite improper to start with whatever conclusion you’d like to believe and then deny/ignore any good evidence to the contrary. Sadly, this is what most people do, whether it’s vaccines, climate change, evolution, etc. My conclusions on lead were reached by evaluating evidence first, then deciding that, given a choice, I’d prefer a lower level of risk than a higher level of risk.

You clearly don’t understand how research works when involving humans. If you suspect a substance could adversely affect the health of humans, you don’t determine that by exposing humans to it. Ethical constraints forbid it. You don’t expose a bunch of people to radiation and then see if they get cancer. If you did, you’d be culpable and it would be akin to murder. This sort of experimentation is what a lot of “scientists” did in Nazi concentration camps and it didn’t work out so well for the test subjects. But yet you seem to be asking for the intentional lead poisoning of people before you’ll be convinced.

But you CAN find people who were otherwise exposed to something (like hunters eating game) and watch for effects. You can find people who were exposed to radiation and see if they have a higher incidence of cancers compared to those with lower exposures to radiation. Then you can use animals as a surrogate for humans (like feeding pigs lead tainted meat) in a more controlled experiment and watch for effects. Then, these two types of experiments combined can tell you something, especially when both types steer you towards the same conclusion.

I will say no more about it.

New member with 10 posts comes on, starts spouting support for lead ban, is a scientist, uses every logical fallacy, and refuses to address questions with anything besides more fallacies.

" Any amount of supporting evidence"
Produce 1 single point of supporting evidence. Any at all. One single study.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[LeoX]

I wouldn't be surprised to see lead ammo banned on Federal ground.

Sounds like what will happen, just a matter of time

 

[fwafwow]

New member with 10 posts comes on, starts spouting support for lead ban, is a scientist, uses every logical fallacy, and refuses to address questions with anything besides more fallacies.

" Any amount of supporting evidence"
Produce 1 single point of supporting evidence. Any at all. One single study.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I reread his posts and I don’t see where he said he supported a ban on lead.

 

[Pony Soldier]

I have cocerns over a trend to use smaller bullets at higher velocities. I am old school and shoot bigger bullets - slower. I cut my own meat and my goal is dead game, less bloodshot, and minimal fragmentation. I also have a number of rifles of the same caliber but each with a differant twist rate. Copper bullets seem to require yet differant twist rates.

I have always disliked rapid expansion bullets. Silvertips, bronze points, of the 60s and 70s and now eldx cause me concern. Especially in view of diminished choices that force me to choose something I don't want for lack of my preference.

The steel shot in the 80s provided me with crippled birds to chase littered with metal. Improvements of later years has helped somewhat. What it really did was elimonate a large portion of the hunter population that didn't want to buy new guns to cripple birds.

I probably have enough bullets to last the rest of my hunting years and hopefully enough primers since I haven't seen primers for sale in a store for three years.

At this point a lead ban in the government one size fits all program appears to be an anti-hunting drive to limit participation. Our society is trending towards being scared of everything. I'm waiting for camo hasmat suits to meet the trend.

Will I change to copper ? Not only no but hell no.

 

[fwafwow]

Also what @Campaignhat said is that they read lots of good studies on the effects of eating lead and it's detriment. As so far they've been unable to produce a single study.
In that vain, I've read dozens of studies proving that eating less is totally harmless

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I may not understand all of your points, but I’m trying because I think we agree on some of the concepts that should serve as a foundation for determining whether a hypothesis or theory is valid.

Above you acknowledge the problem with some studies on humans - that you can’t have a completely controlled study where people are poisoned, so they can’t be fed lead (or caused to inhale lead for that matter). Yet there is also agreement that elevated lead in the blood is bad. That conclusion must come from less than perfectly controlled studies. I’m not saying that is ideal, but sometimes there are practical limits on the availability of evidence.

So if there is a hypothesis - either (a) that eating meat with lead in is harmless, or (b) that eating meat with lead in it has risks, how would one go about trying to support either theory? As for (a), you mention studies above that seem to support it. I’m interested in those and did a quick PubMed search. I only found papers on the downsides of and treatments for the ingestion of lead (pellets and sinkers) with a very small sample size (one was just 3 children).

As for the studies “proving” eating lead is harmless, wouldn’t those studies by definition fall short of the types of studies you have asked @Campaignhat to produce?

I’m not trying to ban lead. I’m buying lead ammo on a consistent basis. I’m also starting to buy alternatives for what I may use when hunting. While I’m doing that, I’m trying to figure out if the latter is a waste of time and money, either because I’m overly cautious or uninformed. But at the moment, if (1) elevated lead in the blood is bad, and (2) there is any evidence that human blood lead levels can increase due to eating lead, then I want to find anything to refute either of those points. Given the problems with creating a randomized controlled clinical trial on these points, I would settle for any epidemiological or population study that shows an absence of correlation.

 

[FLATHEAD]

What worries me as much as the Govt. lead ban is the number of hunters willing
to do whatever,,,,just because somebody says so. Much like the last mandate situation
we were bullied with.
I'm tired of the BS myself and will continue shooting my lead as long as I have it.

 

[Okhotnik]

I don’t want to debate, but that’s a largely theoretical and academic argument that holds far less water in the field under the vast majority of realistic hunting scenarios.

And you are talking about target shooting at a range. I don’t believe anyone is proposing banning lead ammo for target shooting.

Plus, the Hammers and LRX’s of the world have good, acceptable BCs, and then some.

you would be wrong again and are extremely naive regarding leads bans.

 

[amassi]

I may not understand all of your points, but I’m trying because I think we agree on some of the concepts that should serve as a foundation for determining whether a hypothesis or theory is valid.

Above you acknowledge the problem with some studies on humans - that you can’t have a completely controlled study where people are poisoned, so they can’t be fed lead (or caused to inhale lead for that matter). Yet there is also agreement that elevated lead in the blood is bad. That conclusion must come from less than perfectly controlled studies. I’m not saying that is ideal, but sometimes there are practical limits on the availability of evidence.

So if there is a hypothesis - either (a) that eating meat with lead in is harmless, or (b) that eating meat with lead in it has risks, how would one go about trying to support either theory? As for (a), you mention studies above that seem to support it. I’m interested in those and did a quick PubMed search. I only found papers on the downsides of and treatments for the ingestion of lead (pellets and sinkers) with a very small sample size (one was just 3 children).

As for the studies “proving” eating lead is harmless, wouldn’t those studies by definition fall short of the types of studies you have asked @Campaignhat to produce?

I’m not trying to ban lead. I’m buying lead ammo on a consistent basis. I’m also starting to buy alternatives for what I may use when hunting. While I’m doing that, I’m trying to figure out if the latter is a waste of time and money, either because I’m overly cautious or uninformed. But at the moment, if (1) elevated lead in the blood is bad, and (2) there is any evidence that human blood lead levels can increase due to eating lead, then I want to find anything to refute either of those points. Given the problems with creating a randomized controlled clinical trial on these points, I would settle for any epidemiological or population study that shows an absence of correlation.

It was sarcasm.
He claims evidence but fails to produce it so I should be able to also claim evidence without proof.

Also I've seen this play out on this and other forums
1-New member comes on and jumps into an old lead thread.
2-Appears reasonable at first, then starts making small claims-"I've read some good research"
3-Fails to back up those claims
4- smears the opinion of others as akin to Nazi science(must use Nazi, fascist, communist)
5- further appeals with their credentials- ms in biology
6- says others don't understand how science works, were just too stupid
7- emotional appeal to protect children
8- anyone with a differing opinion is a monster who doesn't care about their children should have cps called on the for giving them lead poisoning- forthcoming.
9- never provides and evidence
10- Turns out this guy works for some raptor conservancy or the Sierra club or the center for biological diversity

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk