Lead poisoning vs. ballistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mp7

Mp7

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
2,153
Location
Hamburg
I´m just curious, wether all the billions of pellets,
that litter the forests and lakes don´t tend to end
up in the hunter´s body in the end??

THESIS:
Of course lead is a proven material for projectile
purposes - but for anyone who likes nature.. and
his family - it should be actually out of the question
to use it in nature -( to-be-discussed...)


Does anyone have figures on how much lead from buckshot
is spread every year in the US alone?

I think the 4 rules - should be extended to a 5th one:
"Is it reasonable to shoot this lead in this situation?
Is there an alternative? Can it be retrieved?


02$
Mp7.
 
Lead in the form of shot, bullets, wheel weights, etc is relatively inert. If you where to inadvertently ingest a lead pellet that wasn't removed before cooking from a game bird, it would simply pass through your system the same way any undigestable object does leaving little to nothing behind. Most modern day man eats so little hunted game animals that their exposure to lead from that source is for all intents non existent.

Where lead is made into extremely small particles or vaporized if inhaled or ingested it becomes to small for the body to effectively expel in a timely manner and can accumulate in the blood to toxic levels. Eliminate or reduce the exposure and the body will expell the metal naturally over time.
 
but for anyone who likes nature.. and
his family - it should be actually out of the question
to use it in nature
Click to expand...

This really gets me. Where do they think the lead came from?
 
eh, from underground?

Let´s not make this a discussion like "why is nuclear power safe or not"....

I´m just putting out the Thesis, that it might be unreasonable
to spread quadrillions of tiny lead pellets in the forests.......

It´s good to hear, that lead-pellets are not easily absorbed into the body,.... IF that´s really true, or just a practical answer
to make us feel better and keep using lead instead of steel-shot.

Isn´t the reason for using steel-shot for bird-hunting to protect
the lakes..... they´re on?


Does anyone have serious links to studies?

Lead levels in deer, fish, corn/wheat grown in hunting areas?

I´ve emptied a couple of Wallyworld boxes of shells
myself into the appalachian forests.....
so no witch-hunt here.

Just an uncomfortable topic...... since ballistics
is a nice lil topic to chat about - and nature is just
too big a topic to chat about comfortably.


(Keep it THR plz.)
 
THESIS:
Of course lead is a proven material for projectile
purposes - but for anyone who likes nature.. and
his family - it should be actually out of the question
to use it in nature -( to-be-discussed...)
Click to expand...
Real science does not support this thesis. In fact, N orth Dakota (I think it was) just concluded a study on this. A GOOGLE search should turn it up.
 
I'd be more worried about all of the pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers used in and around your home and on all of the food you buy in the store than what minute amount of lead there is lying somewhere in or on the ground
 
Isn´t the reason for using steel-shot for bird-hunting to protect
the lakes..... they´re on?
Click to expand...

No, it's to protect the waterfowl who feed on the bottoms of those lakes. Many Wildlife Management Areas (WMA's) require the use of steel shot, or a better term, Non-Toxic shot. For taking of fowl within their boundries regardless of species.
 
Lead in the form of shot, bullets, wheel weights, etc is relatively inert. If you where to inadvertently ingest a lead pellet that wasn't removed before cooking from a game bird, it would simply pass through your system the same way any undigestable object does leaving little to nothing behind. Most modern day man eats so little hunted game animals that their exposure to lead from that source is for all intents non existent.

Where lead is made into extremely small particles or vaporized if inhaled or ingested it becomes to small for the body to effectively expel in a timely manner and can accumulate in the blood to toxic levels. Eliminate or reduce the exposure and the body will expell the metal naturally over time.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the issue WRT to waterfowl. They pick up the pellets, thinkin' that they're stone, and add them to their gizzard to help grind food. The pellets grind against other pebbles in the gizzard and slowly shed minute particles of lead that ARE potentially toxic.

This only affects waterfowl, and only because they actually manage to convert the inert lead pellet into a more toxic form.

Lead pellets laying on the ground pose no health hazard, since that's pretty much where the lead came from the first dang place. :)
 
While the powdered lead is more toxic, I disagree about a projectile being "inert". I read a story a while back about a 7 year old that ate a charm from a Reebok sneaker that had a high lead content, and he died of lead poisoning.
 
Okay, so don't eat charms off ReeBok sneakers (does anyone else smell LAWSUIT in this gem) or old paint chips. Lacking a gizzard lead pellets go right thru people.
Lead solder was used for many decades in water piping, before some supposedly dastardly connection was established to damage, and such was promptly banned, with appropriate govenrment fanfare.
It's like the Transportation Security Authority. Do you really feel safer knowing a bomb will have to be in checked baggage? It's about convincing the voters Big Brother is helping them.
 
I read a story a while back about a 7 year old that ate a charm from a Reebok sneaker that had a high lead content, and he died of lead poisoning.
Click to expand...
And last night, I read a story on CNN about how the Roswell UFO was real.

Don't mean that it was. Just means that somebody with access to a word processor typed in English sentences.
 
The fact that Reebok settled does not make scientific fact - it simply is a statement that Reebok determined that settling was cheaper than fighting.

The charm may have been culpable. It may not have been. The child may have chewed it over a period of time and released lots of lead. Maybe not. The charm may have lodged in the boy and not passed. There is no knowing, certainly not from the available stories.

My point is that a news article, by definition, is not scientific proof of anything.
 
People who spend time outdoors where there were Civil War battles are still finding intact Minie balls in the dirt, where they've been for almost 150 years.

Lead is rather inert.
 
I know I have ingested lead pellets. for many years before I knew better I used to squeeze split shot on my line with my teeth when fishing.
 
I used to be a chemist (dumb manager now) and if I am not mistaken the acid in our stomach is strong enough to dissolve lead surface layers. Luckily the pellets pass thru the body fast enough that not a lot would be dissolved, but if you ate pellets every day it would add up.

If you broke up the pellets into a powder then the surface area increases and more lead gets dissolved in your stomach. But either way an amount of lead enters the bloodstream which isn't good.
 
I'm a pediatrician and I see kids with lead poisoning every day. They are mainly getting it from living in decrepit old homes here in the rust belt. When the house next door burns or is torn down, much of the dust that settles contains high amounts of lead, which the kids end up ingesting. It is a disease of the poor.

The story about the charm bracelet is true. I have personally seen the x-rays showing it sitting in the kids stomach plain as day. If I recall correctly, he died after 3 days. Although, the story I got was that he got it out of one of those coin-operated trinket machines in supermarket lobbies. It was a necklace medallion made in China which was basically a molded glob of lead with silver paint on it.
 
I wonder if there have been lead studies done on any of the WWI and WWII battlefields. Even water tests would be instructive, but so would crop analysis, etc.

Maybe I'll look it up the next time I have a few free hours.

John
 
Interesting input guys.


So the majority does think, that lead is indeed a source
of danger and toxicity.

Wouldn´t it be reasonable to to use a better metal-amalgam
while using guns in the outdoors?

Of course for SD - and for practice in serviced Ranges
lead is find - as ballistics and stopping power are key....

but when plinking in your backyard or on public land
...or shotgunning for squirrel or birds....
would it not be reasonable to use steel only?

I´m not into installing a regulation, that no one can ever enforce,
but a self-control of all nature-loving people to just not
act against it.

i do not think ONE 30/06 unjacketed-soft-leadbullet
shot at a buck will make a big difference...
but emptying 762x39 surplus drum-mags into the forest
sounds like complete nonsense to me.....

....IF the majority can come to the conclusion
that lead is not good at all.... to just be lying around.
 
i do not think ONE 30/06 unjacketed-soft-leadbullet
shot at a buck will make a big difference...
but emptying 762x39 surplus drum-mags into the forest
sounds like complete nonsense to me.....
Click to expand...
Water table tests at/around a local shooting range that gets tens of thousand of projectiles a month deposited into the berms shows no issue with lead contamination.

So why do you think that "emptying 762x39 surplus drum-mags into the forest" sounds like nonsense? Is your objection due to some scientific issue, or due to the fact that you just don't personally indulge in this sort of activity?

Wouldn´t it be reasonable to to use a better metal-amalgam
while using guns in the outdoors?
Click to expand...
Define better, please. More effective as a projectile? Cheaper? More expensive? What are the criteria?

Lead has been used for centuries because it possesses appropriate properties for a projectile while also being relatively inert and relatively inexpensive. No other metal/alloy can claim that combination of properties.

So the majority does think, that lead is indeed a source
of danger and toxicity.
Click to expand...
I dislike this statement. Lead is a source of danger and toxicity only in forms readily absorbed by a host and in concentrations that cannot otherwise be flushed by this host. Spent lead-based projectiles laying about on the ground do not readily fall into that category.

Lead exists in nature and is dug from the rock and earth (usually mined in conjunction with other metals such as copper and zinc). Yet the surrounding georgraphy is not somehow barren of flora and fauna due to the toxic effects of lead. Why is that?

Because the stuff is not plutonium. It does not emit some dangerous gas or subatomic piecepart. It possesses no magical properties. It is not Kryptonite.

No matter how folk try to 'common sense' the issue, using lead projectiles for recreational use and non-waterfowl game hunting is just not an issue.
 
I use lead because steel would probably damage my older shotguns. If I were to hunt waterfowl, I would buy a newer shotgun and use something other than lead, since lead pellets present a "clear and present danger" to water birds, who ingest the lead by taking the pellets into their gizzard/crop.

Hunters and shooters are often nature's best friend, since we have a vested interest in preserving wildlife. Whatever effect shooting lead pellets might have in situations that don't involve waterfowl, it doesn't seem to be serious enough to warrant a massive switch away from lead at this time. The deer population certainly doesn't seem to be suffering due to lead poisoning, and they certainly DO live in the areas where lead pellets are most often shot into the forest (since they are often the target of those pellets). The squirrel population doesn't seem to be suffering from lead poisoning either, and they likewise live in areas where lead pellets are often shot into the forest (since they too are often the target of those pellets).

I applaud your concern for nature. I share it. I think that animal populations and human health are suffering for a number of reasons that are much more serious and immediate than lead poisoning due to lead projectiles left in the woods.
 
MN and ND DNR results

Hello everyone,
This is my first post, but I've been lurking for quite a while. Lead and shooting is something I think a lot about, because I have a 2 year old at home.

Here are links to the MN and ND results:
www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/lead/index.html
http://www.ndhealth.gov/lead/Venison/

There does appear to be some correlation between eating venison and lead levels, although I'm not sure if they corrected for the fact that people who eat lots of venison also tend to spend a lot of time on the range.

One other source of lead that people tend to forget about is the vaporized lead that comes from primers.

Personally, I tend to err on the paranoid side and hunt only with copper slugs and bullets. For a while CCI was making lead-free primers (used in military ranges, which are required to be "green"), but they're unavailable now. If someone would make them, I'd be willing to pay a significant premium to go totally lead-free. When I go to the shooting range, I have a dedicated pair of shoes and change all of my clothes and shower as soon as I get home.

If I shoot a deer during gun season, I ask the butcher only for whole cuts. That way I avoid cross contamination from the meat grinder.

I am sure my level of caution would be going way overboard if there were only adults in the house, but kids are very susceptible, and there is no safe lower limit. When the kids are grown up and off to college, I'll take a deep breath and dial back the caution. I'll also buy a handgun(s), which for some irrational reason, my wife won't have with kids in the house. :neener:
 
From the study:

The lead levels among study participants ranged from none detectable to 9.82 micrograms per
deciliter.
Click to expand...

To put that in perspective - according to the CDC, anything below 10 mg/DL is not an issue (even for children). The average population of the US is expected to have a concentration between 2mg/dL and 10mg/DL. Any concentration below 25 mg/dL is considered acceptable for adults. According to the California Department of Health Services:

Code: 
Blood Lead (µg/dL)               Action Necessary
 
<10                No action needed
 10-24            Identify and minimize lead exposure
 25-49            Remove from exposure if symptomatic. Monitor blood lead and zinc protoporphyrin
 50-79            Remove from work with lead. Immediate medical evaluation indicated. Chelation not indicated unless significant symptoms due to lead poisoning
 >=80             Same as above. Chelation may be indicated if symptomatic. Important to consult on individual case basis

In essence the ND effort showed that the tested subjects who ate vension had slighly higher lead levels than those who did not, but the levels were well within accepted thresholds. More importantly, the study did not review any other environmental factors for potential causality or even establish that the consumtion of harvested game caused a RISE in lead levels. Without a starting measurement as a baseline, a period of execution of the subject behaviors (eating venison), and then a retest to verify the delta in lead levels, the whole effort cannot legitimately be called a study.

It's a survey. Not a study.

I'll stop short of calling the effort a piece of junk science, but it's hardly a publication worthy of scientific peer review. The interesting aspect of it, flaws and all, is that it still could not support the claim that lead projectiles cause a actual health risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top