lead in ammunition

[vlywaterman]

Just recently I was sharing information on non-lead ammunition at a gun show in Saugerties. A gentleman mentioned that lead is “naturally occurring”, as though this made it ok. The idea that if something is natural, it must be ok, I don’t believe is always true. I love wild mushrooms, and I can assure folks that not all that is natural is consumable.  What about mercury and asbestos? If one does not believe that lead is a toxic substance, then concern about lead in ammunition is a mute point. But, if we believe it is toxic why would we put it in our food? I read this article on the site Huntfortruth.org: http://www.huntfortruth.org/research-indicates-no-lead-threat-in-hunted-game/.  Hunters should read the suggested papers, and judge for themselves.

Here is a link for their most important paper that claims there is no evidence that lead in game meat is harmful:

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=542020096000011100124085070065064102026044031032057003066126100028004097107027125066031056003008104040034097127076110017002089027091046046045108064100107099094018004077083060021093019070121118081074026006122031121090012075093119079094007084029069005102&EXT=pdf

There is one part in there that states, “Many of the studies are based on randomly selected packs of mincemeat. It should be noted that at least two factors may have increased the likelihood of encountering lead in these packs. First, the minced meat may have been processed from poor cuts, trims and possibly the tissue dam- aged by bullets. Secondly, in one of the studies the packs analyzed were donated to the Community Action Food Centre. One cannot help but ponder whether those households donating gave away their best game meat? “ This scientist is suggesting that hunters donating game are getting rid of the poor quality game meat, or that the processors are not trimming enough around the wound channel? And, the study was done in test tubes, not in a real digestive system. If you want to read a paper that talks about actual real digestion and absorption of lead in game meat, read this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669501/

 

Here is a great short video that was filmed in Delaware County. I would like to note that the eagle in the film was rehabilitated, and released, but died a week later. It was originally found in the vicinity of another dead bald eagle near Stamford. Probably neither of these eagles would have been found if one didn't have a transmitter on.

http://doas.us/lead-ammunition-a-needless-danger-to-eagles-and-ourselves-video/

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Why all of a sudden there is a problem? I mean hunting is and has been on the down slide for years. There was never a problem back when half the people in the country was a hunter?  

[EspressoBuzz]

Prepare for an irrational attack for even mentioning that lead is harmful from the already lead infused....

[vlywaterman]

I was watching a documentary with my grandson about the Grand Canyon, a good part of it was about a pair of condors that were nesting there, this would have been their first chick to survive, and either one or both of the parents were routinely trapped and tested for lead. Lead seems to be the biggest obstacle to the recovery of the species. A couple of great links here: https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/condor_updates.htm

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/condor-re-introduction.htm

and this one on how a program to switch to non-lead ammo seems to be encouraging for the condors. http://grandcanyonnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=74&SubSectionID=114&ArticleID=10998

 

So, this is what I believe about the issue with lead in ammo. I started hunting some 50 years ago on my family farm in Delaware County. All our ammo was lead, there were no laws even for hunting waterfowl with lead. My house had shingles(for siding) made of asbestos, and the town would oil the roads once a year to keep the dust down, some of that oil probably had PCBs in it(it was cheaper),and it was perfectly legal. http://www.balch.com/files/Publication/a398308c-8127-41ee-b6bb-38fa16d76bda/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/569e4dcf-dc3c-4d54-b543-0a7fa02d93cc/PCB%20-%20THead.pdf

My point being, is that we learn from things, and what we have always done, sometimes we can’t continue to do, and shouldn’t because we know better. 

[Padre86]

I said lead was a naturally occurring element in another thread about this very topic.  Yes lead is harmful, but the real question that has yet to receive a definitive answer is whether or not the small amounts deposited by bullets are actually having some measurable effect on other wildlife and humans.

 

There was an often quoted study conducted in North Dakota back in 2008, where about 740 people were surveyed for lead content in their blood (nearly 80% had been consuming wild venison, which the study assumed had been killed with lead bullets).  The study can be found here:  

 

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008%20CDC%20ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf

 

 

 And there have been a wide range of interpretations of the study's results:

 

Scientific American claiming that this study conclusively proved that lead bullets "raises lead exposure" :

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/ 

 

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) saying that the lead levels found in the study still fall under what the CDC considers to be a safe amount:

 

http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/hunting/whitetail-deer/accessories-gear/2008/12/update-lead-your-meat

 

I think the best answer to date is found within the study itself:

 

 

While this study suggests that consumption of wild game meat can adversely affect PbB, no participant had PbB higher than the CDC recommended threshold of 10µg/dl—the level at which CDC recommends case management; and the geometric mean PbB among this study population (1.17µg/dl) was lower than the overall population geometric mean PbB in the United States (1.60 µg/dl)

 

The µg/dl you see behind each of those numbers stands for micrograms per deciliter which is how the lead content was measured in the blood for those surveyed.  

 

Ingesting lead is bad for our health (and for any animal's health).  We all know that.  Whether or not lead bullets are having any significant affect on our health and other wildlife's health relative to other forms of lead exposure is the million dollar question.  

 

And how long have hunters in America, and throughout the world, been using lead to kill game and then harvest and eat the meat?  You'd think by now we'd have some confirmed link between eating lead-killed game meat and some disease or sickness.  To my knowledge there are no studies proving such an outcome.

 

Listen, if the scientific consensus eventually determines that lead bullets are having an adverse affect on our health, I'll accept that and find another source of ammo (as will most other hunters I'm sure).  The problem is that there is no consensus yet, though there are a lot of opinionated websites and media groups that are trying to claim the issue is settled.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Padre86

[vlywaterman]

Please don’t feel like anything I say is in anyway condescending, I am very happy to be able to have this conversation.

 

What sort of consensus of scientists would be needed? I read this statement a while back: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6dq3h64x

I can do a Google search of lead and wildlife and come up with lots of papers about it’s negative effects.

 

The CDC has reduced the level for intervention from 10µg/dl to 5, but they also say there is no level known without effects on children. And when I read about the lead issues in Flint, I remember there though there were some very high blood lead levels(very few sick people though), the concern was long term problems. I came across this in one paper I was just reading,

Even low levels of lead exposure can cause irreversible brain damage in children under age 6. That damage can include a reduction in IQ, increased risk of attention deficit disorder and increased aggression and impulsivity. Studies show children with elevated lead levels are more likely as adults to be un- or underemployed, be dependent on government services and/or end up in prison.

In the same article(which is not a scientific paper), it stated:

The good news: There has been a huge drop in children's lead levels in recent decades since the United States phased out use of leaded gas and leaded paint.

In 1976, the average American child had a blood lead level of approximately 16 µg/dL — a level considered unacceptable today.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/thousands_of_michigan_children.html

 

 

[DirtTime]

Why all of a sudden there is a problem? I mean hunting is and has been on the down slide for years. There was never a problem back when half the people in the country was a hunter?  

Exactly! But, back then more hunters also actually went into to the woods to hunt. Not behind the culdesac just outside the city. 

 

Prepare for an irrational attack for even mentioning that lead is harmful from the already lead infused....

You prepare well. But alas, most of us have tired of this debate. We are forming a 'militia' against it. When the time is right, you will hear our voice. But, not at this time.

[Rattler]

You can preach all about the disadvantages of lead ammo and try to persuade people to use non-lead bullets, like a missionary trying to convert native Americans, and you will not get much push back.  However, if you cross over the line and start pushing a law banning lead ammo, or even supporting one, you should expect to get a lot of push back.  There any many reasons this will happen and people have a right to object.  Once you partner with the government against people's individual freedom of choice, especially without a consensus, you will be viewed as subversive.  I like Barnes X bullets, but do not want anyone telling me I cannot use anything else if I choose to.

[DirtTime]

You can preach all about the disadvantages of lead ammo and try to persuade people to use non-lead bullets, like a missionary trying to convert native Americans, and you will not get much push back.  However, if you cross over the line and start pushing a law banning lead ammo, or even supporting one, you should expect to get a lot of push back.  There any many reasons this will happen and people have a right to object.  Once you partner with the government against people's individual freedom of choice, especially without a consensus, you will be viewed as subversive.  I like Barnes X bullets, but do not want anyone telling me I cannot use anything else if I choose to.

That's a proper attitude and thinking Rattler.

 

This whole thing is flat out silly! There's no current "FACTUAL" numbers/stats on how many 'birds' are effected from lead ammo. Every time I read one of these threads about lead ammo I think of the stupid gun control nuts that are eventually getting their way. It starts as a snowball and ends in an avalanche!

I want to protect the environment and the creatures that inhabit it as much as anyone. I really wish people would stop telling other people what ammo to use, what guns they can own, and what time they can fart!

[vlywaterman]

Where do you find information that there is no factual numbers on wildlife affected by lead in ammunition? I am really curious on where you get that information, I would like to read it. If you search for lead poisoning in wildlife I think you find quite a bit of factual scientific papers that suggest this is true. Do you believe that banning lead for hunting waterfowl was just about anti hunting, and it was not based on science? What information, or from whom would would be something that you would accept? I have shown some links to scientific studies, did you read any of them?

[Padre86]

Please don’t feel like anything I say is in anyway condescending, I am very happy to be able to have this conversation.

 

What sort of consensus of scientists would be needed? I read this statement a while back: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6dq3h64x

I can do a Google search of lead and wildlife and come up with lots of papers about it’s negative effects.

 

The CDC has reduced the level for intervention from 10µg/dl to 5, but they also say there is no level known without effects on children. And when I read about the lead issues in Flint, I remember there though there were some very high blood lead levels(very few sick people though), the concern was long term problems. I came across this in one paper I was just reading,

 

 

I wasn't aware that the CDC had reduced the max amount of lead exposure from 10µg/dl to 5µg/dl.  And I understand that children are especially vulnerable to lead exposure, as they are to a bunch of other things.  But when the U.S.'s population as a whole has a lead exposure (geometric mean, not arithmetic average) of 1.60 µg/dl while a sample population from North Dakota (where 80% were consuming lead-shot venison meat) only has 1.17 µg/dl, again I ask how much of an affect lead bullets are having on our lead exposure and our health overall.  If that study proved anything, it was that there are forms of lead exposure that far supercede the exposure from tiny lead fragments in our meat.

 

You're not being condescending and I welcome a discussion on this.  But like I said earlier, no one is arguing that lead doesn't have negative health affects.  The million dollar question is whether or not the tiny fragments left from bullet strikes will have any meaningful affect on the environment and its inhabitants (including us).  So far, I have not seen any studies that conclusively prove that there is a significant health threat from eating lead-shot game meat, and there are years and years of data from which to draw and make such a case.

[vlywaterman]

There is a great piece written by Carroll Henderson, http://soarraptors.org/2016/03/op-ed-piece-from-carroll-henderson/

​He is the gentleman that is probably the most responsible for banning lead for hunting waterfowl. He is also the gentleman that worked with folks from our DEC to bring back Bald eagles into NYS. The eagle that was killed in western NY, just over a year ago, was one he had caught, and sent back to us 38 years ago as a nestling. http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/102089.html

If you are old enough, you probably remember there were no eagles to be seen here in the 70's, mostly due to DDT, which for many years we thought was fine to use.

Anyway, it is a well written piece to read.

[DirtTime]

Where do you find information that there is no factual numbers on wildlife affected by lead in ammunition? I am really curious on where you get that information, I would like to read it. If you search for lead poisoning in wildlife I think you find quite a bit of factual scientific papers that suggest this is true. Do you believe that banning lead for hunting waterfowl was just about anti hunting, and it was not based on science? What information, or from whom would would be something that you would accept? I have shown some links to scientific studies, did you read any of them?

Where do you have up to date at minimum 2015 stats and data on the topic? As was mentioned, most of this data is out dated. How many predatory birds have been killed by lead ammo from say, 2010 to date? 

 

 

It still doesn't change the fact that I am sick and tired of NYS residents and the "Go Green" crew telling me and others what ammo we should use!

 

With all the other BS going on this is the battle you pick? We are on the verge of possibly having guns banned as a whole. I would think more people would be on board to save the 2nd Amendment over all the worry about lead ammo. Just my opinion as an American. 

[vlywaterman]

Padre, that is a good point about the lead levels in the ND CDC study, and I couldn't agree with you more that there are more significant avenues for lead to get into our bodies. I looked at the study and thought the people were fortunate to have low blood levels, but I also saw that the people who consumed game meat had a higher level than those that did not. If there is no safe level, why add lead to our diet, and even if we are below the national average, why increase our lead levels at all?

Did you read the study with the venison from the food pantries that was fed to the pigs? I was curious why the blood lead levels stopped increasing after 4 days(I think), even though the study went for 9 days or so.

Can you find me any scientific links that suggest that lead does not affect our wildlife?

This is a short simple read from the NPS with some pretty sad facts about lead poisoning and bald eagles in the midwest. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/InsideR3/March14Story14.htm

[Padre86]

There is a great piece written by Carroll Henderson, http://soarraptors.org/2016/03/op-ed-piece-from-carroll-henderson/

​He is the gentleman that is probably the most responsible for banning lead for hunting waterfowl. He is also the gentleman that worked with folks from our DEC to bring back Bald eagles into NYS. The eagle that was killed in western NY, just over a year ago, was one he had caught, and sent back to us 38 years ago as a nestling. http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/102089.html

If you are old enough, you probably remember there were no eagles to be seen here in the 70's, mostly due to DDT, which for many years we thought was fine to use.

Anyway, it is a well written piece to read.

 

I'm sure they are interesting reads, but what does this have to do with lead exposure in game meat?

 

You're bringing up a lot of tangential topics and studies when the original discussion and title of this whole thread was about lead being used in hunting ammo and the possible health consequences.  

 

My suggestion is to stay specific to the original topic and make an argument based on studies/papers which address this issue.

 

No one disputes that lead exposure is very bad for children or that eagles have made a comeback in NY due to better conservation practices.  If you want to argue that lead bullets have negative health affects for us and other animals, there are some very simple metrics and measures that you could try to find and reference to make your point...so far I've not seen you do that.

 

I again refer you to the 2008 study conducted in North Dakota where a sample population (which predominantly ate lead-shot venison) had a lower lead exposure relative to the overall US population:  

 

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008%20CDC%20ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf

 

Do you have a direct response to the findings I brought up from that study, or do you want to continue on your rant?

[vlywaterman]

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2014/aug/wingedwarnings10metalmadness

Even when lead doesn't kill these birds, it makes them incapable of surviving in the wild.

[vlywaterman]

I'm not ranting, did you read the CDC study? did you see that those that consumed game meat had higher lead levels than those that did not? 

[Padre86]

Padre, that is a good point about the lead levels in the ND CDC study, and I couldn't agree with you more that there are more significant avenues for lead to get into our bodies. I looked at the study and thought the people were fortunate to have low blood levels, but I also saw that the people who consumed game meat had a higher level than those that did not. If there is no safe level, why add lead to our diet, and even if we are below the national average, why increase our lead levels at all?

Did you read the study with the venison from the food pantries that was fed to the pigs? I was curious why the blood lead levels stopped increasing after 4 days(I think), even though the study went for 9 days or so.

Can you find me any scientific links that suggest that lead does not affect our wildlife?

This is a short simple read from the NPS with some pretty sad facts about lead poisoning and bald eagles in the midwest. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/InsideR3/March14Story14.htm

 

I did read the part of the 2008 North Dakota study which stated there were some people who were eating game meat and did have higher lead levels in their blood.  Again though, if the US population as a whole has a higher exposure than a sample population (which predominantly ate lead-shot venison), and considering that most Americans don't eat wild game meat, what does that say about the health threat from eating lead-shot game relative to other lead sources?

 

I have not read the study on feeding food pantry meat to pigs, though i have heard it referenced.  Perhaps you could summarize those talking points which are relevant to this conversation?

 

That piece from the FWS on eagles sounds nice on paper, but there are a lot of unknowns that are left unaddressed:

- How many of the eagles died from lead exposure?  The article said that 38% of the sample population had lethal amounts of lead in their livers, so right off that indicates that the remaining could have died from other causes.

- Do we know that the eagles were getting their lead exposure solely from shot animals?  The article certainly didn't say that, though they did assume that shot deer carcasses were the likely culprit.  How did they arrive at that assumption?  A similar assumption was made about the Condors in California...after the lead ban went into effect, information (which had until then been sat on by an official with CA's fish and wildlife) was released which suggested that lead bullets were not having as big of an effect on the Condors as was previously thought: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passed-after-feds-withheld-key/

 

Again, we all know lead exposure can potentially lead to health issues.  The real question that needs to be answered is whether tiny fragments from bullets will have anything other than a negligible effect on us and other animals.  

[vlywaterman]

As you have brought up the CDC a number of times, is this an agency that you would believe?

If so, read this.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/LeadFragmentsinVenison/Venison%20and%20Lead%20HC%20110408.pdf

In it is this calculation:

At the mean lead concentration found in pantry samples, the model predicts that consuming venison with 6.2 mg/kg lead every 15 days will result in 80 % of children less that 7 years old having blood lead greater than 10 μg/dL level of concern. If the ingestion frequency is reduced to once every 30 days, the predicted percentage of children with blood lead >10 μg/dL is 50%. 

[Padre86]

As you have brought up the CDC a number of times, is this an agency that you would believe?

If so, read this.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/LeadFragmentsinVenison/Venison%20and%20Lead%20HC%20110408.pdf

In it is this calculation:

At the mean lead concentration found in pantry samples, the model predicts that consuming venison with 6.2 mg/kg lead every 15 days will result in 80 % of children less that 7 years old having blood lead greater than 10 μg/dL level of concern. If the ingestion frequency is reduced to once every 30 days, the predicted percentage of children with blood lead >10 μg/dL is 50%. 

 

That's cool man, and certainly worth considering.  But you're talking about a hypothetical model.  I'd like to see you present some actual numbers and statistics derived from real-world examples and sample populations (like I did using the 2008 North Dakota study).

 

It's not that I think the CDC's model is a bunch of garbage, but at this point, having used lead to kill our game meat for centuries, there should be no lack of raw data for scientists and statisticians to review and make the case that there are specific and measurable health threats from ingesting wild game meat shot with lead bullets.

[mike rossi]

If you search the literature you will discover that the smaller the lead particle, the easier it enters the bloodstream. And that there is no safe level of blood lead. 

 

It accumulates in many tissues, but also in bone were it mimics calcium. When women get pregnant calcium and lead is leached from the bones and enters the bloodstream of the fetus and later into the milk, Fetus and infants have a much lower level of tolerance for lead. An adult can have low levels of blood lead but still have health problems linked to  lead exposure when he was a fetus or infant. 

 

Also, the story about lead naturally occurring in the environment is irrelevant. So is radon and a lot of harmful stuff.

[vlywaterman]

I have a long day tomorrow, but before I quit tonight I wanted to resend the link to the pig study and send on just one part from the abstract.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005330

Mean blood lead concentrations in pigs peaked at 2.29 µg/dL (maximum 3.8 µg/dL) 2 days following ingestion of fragment-containing venison, significantly higher than the 0.63 µg/dL averaged by controls

 

 

 

[airedale]

vlywaterman this lead business has all been discussed and debated in several long threads in depth just a few weeks ago on this board, I would suggest you read those threads.

 

http://huntingny.com...rief-go-debate/

 

http://huntingny.com...-non-lead-ammo/

 

 

[Padre86]

If you search the literature you will discover that the smaller the lead particle, the easier it enters the bloodstream. And that there is no safe level of blood lead. 

 

It accumulates in many tissues, but also in bone were it mimics calcium. When women get pregnant calcium and lead is leached from the bones and enters the bloodstream of the fetus and later into the milk, Fetus and infants have a much lower level of tolerance for lead. An adult can have low levels of blood lead but still have health problems linked to  lead exposure when he was a fetus or infant. 

 

Also, the story about lead naturally occurring in the environment is irrelevant. So is radon and a lot of harmful stuff.

 

Yep, I agree that there are health risks associated with ingesting lead.  I think we've covered this several times over now.

 

Lead is a naturally occurring element, and that is in fact very relevant.  In fact, there are several, at least, natural elements found in the earth which are harmful to most living organisms, and within that context, lead is not nearly as harmful as some of these others.

 

I have a long day tomorrow, but before I quit tonight I wanted to resend the link to the pig study and send on just one part from the abstract.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005330

Mean blood lead concentrations in pigs peaked at 2.29 µg/dL (maximum 3.8 µg/dL) 2 days following ingestion of fragment-containing venison, significantly higher than the 0.63 µg/dL averaged by controls

 

I'll take a look at it.  But again, why are we talking about a study using pigs?  We, as humans, have been eating lead-shot wild game for quite a long time now.  Why are there no studies which compare two obvious sample populations (those who do eat lead-shot meat and those who don't) to demonstrate if there any measurable health risks?

Edited June 23, 2016 by Padre86

[mike rossi]

Yep, I agree that there are health risks associated with ingesting lead.  I think we've covered this several times over now.

 

Then why do you want to ingest it?

 

 

Lead is a naturally occurring element, and that is in fact very relevant.  In fact, there are several, at least, natural elements found in the earth which are harmful to most living organisms, and within that context, lead is not nearly as harmful as some of these others.

 

Then tell me why it is relevant. You are not making any sense, whether you know it or not. 

 

I'll take a look at it.  But again, why are we talking about a study using pigs?  We, as humans, have been eating lead-shot wild game for quite a long time now.  Why are there no studies which compare two obvious sample populations (those who do eat lead-shot meat and those who don't) to demonstrate if there any measurable health risks?

 

I also posted the pig study a while back. It isnt the best study, but it is written in a way that resonates with more people. As far as human studies, I have not come across any, but I have not looked for any either. Science has determined that lead enters the edible portions of meat and that lead causes a wide spectrum of health problems, and no amount of lead at all is considered safe. That is more than enough evidence  for a thinking person to avoid risk by simply switching ammunition. 

 

Then there have been studies on the ammo itself from a hunter's perspective. None of the drawbacks claimed by organizations representing hunters have been verified by research, And that includes "qualitative" damage to gun barrels. Someone through out the term qualitative damage in a prior discussion.  What is means is something that cannot be measured but seen. In accessing gun barrel damage researchers took measurements for quantitative evidence; but they also examined the barrel under magnification for qualitative damage.     

 

You all ask for "proof" or for studies, but never provide your own substantiations. No matter how many studies that are cited,  you all have your ideas why the study is flawed. Anti - hunters do the same thing, So does industry, Its an old game. That is why sound laws do not get passed. But a thinking person does not need laws to protect himself and his family. All a thinking person has to do to be safe is be guided by the evidence. The evidence shows eating meat harvested with lead ammo is not a good idea. 

 

Then, there is the image of hunting. Only Poly Anna believes all hunters care about the environment, non-game species and are conservationists. Even those hunters should understand that a bad public image impacts political support for hunting as well as attritional lose of hunting license revenue. However, either  they do not realize this; or the future of hunting is another thing they do not care about. Awareness about the subject is building among politicians and the public majority; and they are not reading hunting magazines and the NRA website for information about lead ammunition, only the hunters are. 

 

I am not willing to gamble with  ingesting lead, contribute to an avoidable and  unnecessary ecological impact; and damage the image of hunting. There is enough research evidence for me. 

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by mike rossi