Lead poisoning from eating game shot with lead core bullets?

[Jon Bischof]

Well, lookie here...seems not all scientists are giving us the straight story.

"Pound-for-pound there is more lead in chocolate than game and the European Food Safety Authority says the greatest source of lead in food is from cereals and potatoes.*

The EFSA says that current evidence does not indicate a different risk for vegetarians, normal adults and those who consume high levels of game meat. It says the clinically important effects in adults are 'low to negligible.' "

So you all better cut out the chocolate, cereal and potatoes if you are sincerely worried about your lead consumption. Then after chocolate, cereal and Potatoes are all banned from your diet and you are still worried--then look into your bullets

Here's the link if you want to read it for yourself. I didn't write it, but if I had, I would have included pictures

Lead in game meat fears should not be exaggerated. - BASC

Fears of lead contamination in game meat should not be exaggerated, according to the UK's largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC).

basc.org.uk

 

[Jon Bischof]

You are making an assumption that they do not know. How do you know that they did not omit that part and make it part of their assumption? Have you ever done any research that has gone through independent review/peer-review, accredited, and published? If you have, then you would know what I am talking about.

As previously noted, I have been working on my research study since 2017, but this learner is in no position to criticize a researcher's work. If you think you can do better than the researchers then prove them wrong and put your criticism to good use - add to the empirical knowledge base, not in this forum.

Cheers!

Feenix: I hope that you are throwing away all the meat surrounding the wound channel, if you don't then you may be ingesting lead or copper. Both of which can be toxic to you. So be safe, cut away all the meat that may have fragments from the wound channel. You don't want to get copper or lead poisoning, so seriously, whether you use copper or a mix of copper and lead--you should all be careful to throw out all the meat surrounding the wound channel, up to 18 inches. If anyone is not willing to do this then the consequences are all on you--not on the bullet makers or the State or the Academic Community. You are responsible for your own safety.

If this makes no sense to you, then you may have already eaten too many paint chips, sniffed too much glue, huffed too many aerosols or inhaled too many toxic fumes.

And yeah, I reallly do have a degree in Environmental Science and two masters degrees and more than that I conducted research for the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA, so I do know scientific method. Since you asked (or demanded) I have conducted many experiments that have been published. But I don't have to publish in a scientific journal to post on this public forum.
If you still feel that I can't post my scientific opinions here, then I am content to let Len Backus make a ruling on whether or not I'm allowed.

 

[sixfivefanboy]

While I was googling this subject I came across this article and found it to confirm what I already knew. I have dabbled with different monos in the past and haven't been thrilled with the results so I always end up coming back to bergers or AMAX/ELDMs. I don't believe lead poisoning is a thing.

Copper bullets can be inhumane

The truth about copper bullets versus lead core bullet designs

www.ballisticstudies.com

 

[FEENIX]

Feenix: I hope that you are throwing away all the meat surrounding the wound channel, if you don't then you may be ingesting lead or copper. Both of which can be toxic to you. So be safe, cut away all the meat that may have fragments from the wound channel. You don't want to get copper or lead poisoning, so seriously, whether you use copper or a mix of copper and lead--you should all be careful to throw out all the meat surrounding the wound channel, up to 18 inches. If anyone is not willing to do this then the consequences are all on you--not on the bullet makers or the State or the Academic Community. You are responsible for your own safety.

If this makes no sense to you, then you may have already eaten too many paint chips, sniffed too much glue, huffed too many aerosols or inhaled to many toxic fumes.

And yeah, I reallly do have a degree in Environmental Science and two masters degrees and more than that I conducted research for the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA, so I do know scientific method. Since you asked (or demanded) I have conducted many experiments that have been published. But I don't have to publish in a scientific journal to post on this public forum.
If you still feel that I can't post my scientific opinions here, then I an content to let Len Backus make a ruling on whether or not I'm allowed.

Thanks for the warning!

Good for you but you made it sound like the process was something new. I never demanded anything, I simply stated you have the opportunity to counter the claim of the study in question. Nothing against this forum and its outstanding members but making your opinion (scientific or not) known here does not contribute to the knowledge base where it belongs so it can be used as empirical data for future research studies, just like your other publications. I do not know about your research studies but for my current research study (hoping to have it published in ProQuest), information from a forum is not considered as an empirical source for my literature reviews and by the many levels of the review processes.

"If" you have opened up your post (with or without noting having two masters) just as you noted above, it would have been sufficed, there is no need to criticize another researcher's work, that is all I was trying to point out, esp. when they clearly noted ...

As previously noted, this learner (regardless of how many degrees I have) is in no position to criticize another researcher's work, even in this forum. Cheers!

 

[Savage 12BVSS]

Wow! might not be a "thing" but it's certainly a hot button topic. I'm sure any of you that have met me would describe me as having been around the track more than a few times. That said, I've faced a heart attack - stage lll cancer - 20 plus years of diabetes, and drove race car's, led a hard life and don't live any different now than I ever did. Been bucking, splitting, and hauling wood in for last week in 90+ degree heat for 8 hours a day. Not bragging or complaining, just saying I'm sure as heck not worrying about eating deer and moose I shoot with my accubonds. When the Lord's ready I'll go from something.............I'm just not putting my money on lead

 

[FEENIX]

Wow! might not be a "thing" but it's certainly a hot button topic. I'm sure any of you that have met me would describe me as having been around the track more than a few times. That said, I've faced a heart attack - stage lll cancer - 20 plus years of diabetes, and drove race car's, led a hard life and don't live any different now than I ever did. Been bucking, splitting, and hauling wood in for last week in 90+ degree heat for 8 hours a day. Not bragging or complaining, just saying I'm sure as heck not worrying about eating deer and moose I shoot with my accubonds. When the Lord's ready I'll go from something.............I'm just not putting my money on lead

LOL! I saw your post on another thread. We are inundated with information and it is entirely up to us to synthesize them for what they are worth and move on. I am glad you're enjoying life at its fullest despite what you went through. Cheers!

 

[flyguy1]

I've been waiting for the study that says copper bullets are toxic...

Just wait; as soon as they eliminate lead, copper will be next. They are driven by ideology, not science.

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." Martin Nimoller.

 

[jpope02]

The Sky Is Falling! The Sky is Falling! Oh Well, I can say one positive thing about all this, if the lead band had not happened we would probably not have these great monolithic bullets like Barnes TTSX's. I still use a lot of lead core bullets though and will continue using them until it kills me. Ha! signed "The Mad Hatter"

 

[Jon Bischof]

Thanks for the warning!

Good for you but you made it sound like the process was something new. I never demanded anything, I simply stated you have the opportunity to counter the claim of the study in question. Nothing against this forum and its outstanding members but making your opinion (scientific or not) known here does not contribute to the knowledge base where it belongs so it can be used as empirical data for future research studies, just like your other publications. I do not know about your research studies but for my current research study (hoping to have it published in ProQuest), information from a forum is not considered as an empirical source for my literature reviews and by the many levels of the review processes.

"If" you have opened up your post (with or without noting having two masters) just as you noted above, it would have been sufficed, there is no need to criticize another researcher's work, that is all I was trying to point out, esp. when they clearly noted ...

View attachment 200030

As previously noted, this learner (regardless of how many degrees I have) is in no position to criticize another researcher's work, even in this forum. Cheers!

I appreciate and and understand your position. And you are right, you would be foolish to criticize anyone's work in any scientific journal; especially since you have not published yet. The best you can do to learn the most from your own research is to go to the expert in your field of study that you trust (other than your Academic advisor) and ask them to read your research and give them a print-out so that they can make comments and suggestions in writing and give it back to you before you turn it in to your Advisor. Once it goes to ProQuest it is most likely you will get little or no meaningful feedback.

I know you have been taught the value of peer review and the good goal of adding to the empirical record of knowledge. But the peer process does not always work as it should. It should be independent, unbiased and based only upon scientific data and empirical proofs from well-controlled, repeated experiments.

Unfortunately, even the best-intended system of review can and often is corrupted by various other interests--both monetary and political. Sad really, but it is the nature of the world we live in. I doubt that the peer process will ever be effective again unless the scientific community is forced into it by pressure from outside academia. They certainly are not getting the critiques science really needs for advancement from their own colleagues.

I never poofoo real science, but the state of scientific knowledge and advancement needs more criticism, not less. The reason why trust in science is so diminished today is that for years they have neglected to critique the work of their colleagues. And it can be professional suicide to try.

Critiques coming from outside the professional academic community can easily be brushed aside by "You are not qualified to speak to this because you lack the necessary credentials." Even well-credentialed, well-argued critiques are often brushed aside because that's not where the funding is. So often the money dictates what is accepted and what is not. The good researchers have been complaining about it for years but if any change comes it will have to take place because of dire necessity. There is simply too much money, politics and power involved for change to come voluntarily. But one day, God willing, someone with enough clout will point out that "the world is not flat" probably to his own destruction--but perhaps to the betterment of science and humanity in the long run.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I appreciate and and understand your position. And you are right, you would be foolish to criticize anyone's work in any scientific journal; especially since you have not published yet. The best you can do to learn the most from your own research is to go to the expert in your field of study that you trust (other than your Academic advisor) and ask them to read your research and give them a print-out so that they can make comments and suggestions in writing and give it back to you before you turn it in to your Advisor. Once it goes to ProQuest it is most likely you will get little or no meaningful feedback.

I know you have been taught the value of peer review and the good goal of adding to the empirical record of knowledge. But the peer process does not always work as it should. It should be independent, unbiased and based only upon scientific data and empirical proofs from well-controlled, repeated experiments.

Unfortunately, even the best-intended system of review can and often is corrupted by various other interests--both monetary and political. Sad really, but it is the nature of the world we live in. I doubt that the peer process will ever be effective again unless the scientific community is forced into it by pressure from outside academia. They certainly are not getting the critiques science really needs for advancement from their own colleagues.

I never poofoo real science, but the state of scientific knowledge and advancement needs more criticism, not less. The reason why trust in science is so diminished today is that for years they have neglected to critique the work of their colleagues. And it can be professional suicide to try.

Critiques coming from outside the professional academic community can easily be brushed aside by "You are not qualified to speak to this because you lack the necessary credentials." Even well-credentialed, well-argued critiques are often brushed aside because that's not where the funding is. So often the money dictates what is accepted and what is not. The good researchers have been complaining about it for years but if any change comes it will have to take place because of dire necessity. There is simply too much money, politics and power involved for change to come voluntarily. But one day, God willing, someone with enough clout will point out that "the world is not flat" probably to his own destruction--but perhaps to the betterment of science and humanity in the long run.

This is what is happening in geology. Most scientists don't accept the amount of helium in the rocks.

 

[Jon Bischof]

This is what is happening in geology. Most scientists don't accept the amount of helium in the rocks.

As they say, "A man's gotta make a living." So one has to count the cost before one engages in the peer review process. Most who take a realistic look at it beforehand rightly conclude that the cost is more than they are willing to pay. It is much more than just money and reputation. It is not only bullets that can be monolithic.

 

[GunHawk]

I appreciate and and understand your position. And you are right, you would be foolish to criticize anyone's work in any scientific journal; especially since you have not published yet. The best you can do to learn the most from your own research is to go to the expert in your field of study that you trust (other than your Academic advisor) and ask them to read your research and give them a print-out so that they can make comments and suggestions in writing and give it back to you before you turn it in to your Advisor. Once it goes to ProQuest it is most likely you will get little or no meaningful feedback.

I know you have been taught the value of peer review and the good goal of adding to the empirical record of knowledge. But the peer process does not always work as it should. It should be independent, unbiased and based only upon scientific data and empirical proofs from well-controlled, repeated experiments.

Unfortunately, even the best-intended system of review can and often is corrupted by various other interests--both monetary and political. Sad really, but it is the nature of the world we live in. I doubt that the peer process will ever be effective again unless the scientific community is forced into it by pressure from outside academia. They certainly are not getting the critiques science really needs for advancement from their own colleagues.

I never poofoo real science, but the state of scientific knowledge and advancement needs more criticism, not less. The reason why trust in science is so diminished today is that for years they have neglected to critique the work of their colleagues. And it can be professional suicide to try.

Critiques coming from outside the professional academic community can easily be brushed aside by "You are not qualified to speak to this because you lack the necessary credentials." Even well-credentialed, well-argued critiques are often brushed aside because that's not where the funding is. So often the money dictates what is accepted and what is not. The good researchers have been complaining about it for years but if any change comes it will have to take place because of dire necessity. There is simply too much money, politics and power involved for change to come voluntarily. But one day, God willing, someone with enough clout will point out that "the world is not flat" probably to his own destruction--but perhaps to the betterment of science and humanity in the long run.

I guess I'm just now realizing that scientists are also human (obvious sarcasm?)! You make some salient points, but I think some journals are reputable, others not quite so much. Articles are often accepted for reasons other than the merits of the science, often when new statistical techniques are employed, but overall I think it is better than the non peer reviewed stuff. However, over time the science is augmented/corrected by new research and we arrive at something reliable.
#1 rule of science: Assume nothing is going on unless you have overwhelming evidence (not proof) that there is.

Then, after careful analyses, you may say something like, " with the evidence I have now, I'm at least 95% sure that what I think is going on is actually true, but I acknowledge that, with another set of evidence I may (or may not) reach a different conclusion, using the same methods.

 

[DNADave]

@Jon Bischof , I guess I don't have quite as pessimistic a view of the peer review process as you. Yes, there are problems, but I don't see them as pervasive as it appears you have experienced in your field. I do feel your pain as I have had poor reviews of my articles in that the responses led me to believe that a particular reviewer was not qualified to review my paper (this happens frequently in genomics where a journal editor may give a more statistically oriented paper to a bench/molecular scientist to review). Sometimes, you can ask for another reviewer to be used if you can rationally explain why. Peer review will never be perfect since as @GunHawk pointed out, we scientists are just people.

An aspect of science that is often lost is that we fail all the time, and there is a bias toward not publishing those failures. When I set up an experiment to test something that I think is a real phenomena, I have to be willing to accept a few things. The first is that the data may tell me my idea is wrong, and I have to be ready to accept that outcome. The second is that while I have done everything I can think of to control outside influences on my data so that I can hone in on just the factor I'm interested in, there may be something I forgot or didn't know about that an external reviewer will pick up on. It happens, but happens less as I gain more experience and colleagues I can have review my plans before I implement them.

Now, back to our original question. We may never really know true answer to the question of the safety of lead bullets (or even copper if we were to try that experiment). The reasons are many. First, we do know that the impact of lead exposure is cumulative and happens over long periods of time. This means experiments are expensive since we have to not only design our experiment, but monitor it over some longer period of time than a single time point. We also cannot conduct this experiment in people. All research involving mammalian organisms is approved by a Institutional Review Board (IRB) of some type. The purpose of this board is to review the ethics (I hope Len will permit this use as this is the intention of this type of board and within the purview of their expertise) of any experiment involving mammals. They will not allow this to be performed on people, so we have to resort to a surrogate organism. Mice are a poor facsimile to people, rats are better, but probably pigs are best when it comes to modeling human nutrition. So, using pigs will be costly (we need a facility, we'll need to have enough pigs to sacrifice a few at every time point we monitor, and we need trained caretakers who will dutifully follow the research protocol). A board will still have to review this study before it can be conducted. We'll have to define meaningful endpoints to monitor (amount of lead accrued in tissues such as kidneys, liver, blood, brain, etc., and a way to monitor them (what assays do I use). All of those things cost money. Now, we want to simulate eating hunted game using frangible bullets. Do we use one specific bullet, or do we use a range within a class of frangible bullets? How do we simulate eating hunted game? Do we shoot goat carcasses? That will not be exactly the same as there is no active vasculature in a goat carcass, so maybe shoot live goats? Now, we're back to that IRB for approval again. How much goat meat, from how far out from the wound, and how often do we feed the pigs? Does the way we store the meat, or how the meat was processed (ground versus whole) matter?

As @FEENIX pointed out earlier, no single experiment will answer all of those questions, so we're probably looking at several experiments, to answer all of those questions. A task like this would be well beyond the budget of most of the agencies who would care about such research. A partnership between wildlife organizations and the USDA might work, but would you rather fund this or habitat restoration?

So where does that leave us? We're unlikely to get the research done to truly answer the question the OP posted. We have a fair amount of empirical evidence that consuming game shot with frangible lead bullets is not highly lethal (people do not die in a detectably shorter time frame from non game eaters), although the other effects of lead consumption may be present (remember, the effects are cumulative over a long period of time which makes them hard to detect). Given all that, the safest route would be if you use a frangible lead bullet to dispatch your game, trim away the wound area and do not consume that trimmed meat. Eat away at the rest. Maybe one day we'll be able to do these studies and we'll get some good guidelines such as trim 5-6" out from the wound to be safe. We'll never know that information until we do the research.

And, that is why we do science. Not necessarily to prove a hypothesis or set out agenda, but to understand the facts as determined by the data we observe.

 

[Rich Coyle]

As they say, "A man's gotta make a living." So one has to count the cost before one engages in the peer review process. Most who take a realistic look at it beforehand rightly conclude that the cost is more than they are willing to pay. It is much more than just money and reputation. It is not only bullets that can be monolithic.

I certainly understand the idea of review. I write lots of essays to answer questions people asked me about my "religion". The one in question is called "The Rapture Rupture" which goes against the grain of most "Christians". I gave it to a few friends to give me some constructive criticism. Everyone except my older brother told me it was good. My older brother used to beat up on me when we were kids pencil whipped it. He was the only one I thanked. Now it's really good.