Lead Poisoning
- Thread starter ButterBean
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
59FLH
Well-Known Member
For those of you looking for more information about the subject: The ball cap dude in the video helped author this.
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
Thanks. Well worth the time to read.
Horrible stuff these days. So much bondage. And for what...
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
All this talk of poison in our environment reminded me of this little illustration I saw the other day haha - and yet somehow the human life expectancy has gone up dramatically in the last 100 years…almost like we've got MUCH bigger things to worry about than a trace bit of lead in some game meat either way…
Attachments
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
That's exactly what I think lol.
Ckleeves
Well-Known Member
I bet you couldn't tell a difference. I have had to get my lead levels checked every 6 months for the past 17 years.
I eat tons of game harvested with lead bullets. I'm in and around lead pretty much every day. All the guys I work with have to follow the same testing schedule. My levels are lower than almost every 19-30 year old coworker. Some non-hunters and hunters in that group and the highest numbers we have ever seen were from guys that game consumption wouldn't have been a factor in their levels (casual get a deer every 4 years type of hunters).
Btw my levels have never even come close to being elevated.
First of all, except for gophers, I only shoot copper, and have for decades, first Barnes, and now Hammers.
Couple of problems with the article.
They set out to prove there was a problem, and then sampled data (after hunting season) which would be most likely to prove it.
That's just not the way honest research works.
They admitted that their data should have shown a bivalent curve, one peaking in and after when the gophers come out and before the grass is too high to shoot them, and another after big game season, but that was not observed.
It would stand to reason that the first peak would be much larger. (Say average rifle shooter for big game, if lucky, and not someone on a doe-killing spree, shoots maybe 3 rounds a year, and lets, just for the sake of argument, say 450 grains of lead (and it's not all lead, of course). The average gopher hunter might easily shoot 500 40 gr lead projectiles in a season.)
And when their data was not consistent with their hypothesis, they said, well, maybe somebody is shooting coyotes or cows or something.
They mention death by autos, electrocution, and commercial wind energy.
Had they been honest, and actually concerned about the plight of eagles, they would likely at least have had some quantitative data about relative mortality from each modus.
Guess how much grant money you are going to receive for looking at mortality from commercial wind farms, relative to grant money which negatively affects some hunters?
So, as I said, nothing pro or con copper or lead, just want science to be a little more precise.
First, assume the null hypothesis: the target variable has no effect on the outcome.
Collect the BLINDED data; no evidence they did this. Operator bias is impossible to avoid, and that has been known for 8 or 9 decades or so.
Then present your data. And I saw only one p value that looked significant and it was a negative correlation. And the numbers were so small it would be hard to show validity anyway. What if eagles which had higher lead levels from whatever source were more easily trapped?
Kind of like wolves prey only on the old and weak
Couple of problems with the article.
They set out to prove there was a problem, and then sampled data (after hunting season) which would be most likely to prove it.
That's just not the way honest research works.
They admitted that their data should have shown a bivalent curve, one peaking in and after when the gophers come out and before the grass is too high to shoot them, and another after big game season, but that was not observed.
It would stand to reason that the first peak would be much larger. (Say average rifle shooter for big game, if lucky, and not someone on a doe-killing spree, shoots maybe 3 rounds a year, and lets, just for the sake of argument, say 450 grains of lead (and it's not all lead, of course). The average gopher hunter might easily shoot 500 40 gr lead projectiles in a season.)
And when their data was not consistent with their hypothesis, they said, well, maybe somebody is shooting coyotes or cows or something.
They mention death by autos, electrocution, and commercial wind energy.
Had they been honest, and actually concerned about the plight of eagles, they would likely at least have had some quantitative data about relative mortality from each modus.
Guess how much grant money you are going to receive for looking at mortality from commercial wind farms, relative to grant money which negatively affects some hunters?
So, as I said, nothing pro or con copper or lead, just want science to be a little more precise.
First, assume the null hypothesis: the target variable has no effect on the outcome.
Collect the BLINDED data; no evidence they did this. Operator bias is impossible to avoid, and that has been known for 8 or 9 decades or so.
Then present your data. And I saw only one p value that looked significant and it was a negative correlation. And the numbers were so small it would be hard to show validity anyway. What if eagles which had higher lead levels from whatever source were more easily trapped?
Kind of like wolves prey only on the old and weak
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
Real evidence right there!
Ucsdryder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,571
Thank you for sharing. I find this the most interesting post in the whole thread.
7.62 Gunner
Well-Known Member
Good pointsFirst of all, except for gophers, I only shoot copper, and have for decades, first Barnes, and now Hammers.
Couple of problems with the article.
They set out to prove there was a problem, and then sampled data (after hunting season) which would be most likely to prove it.
That's just not the way honest research works.
They admitted that their data should have shown a bivalent curve, one peaking in and after when the gophers come out and before the grass is too high to shoot them, and another after big game season, but that was not observed.
It would stand to reason that the first peak would be much larger. (Say average rifle shooter for big game, if lucky, and not someone on a doe-killing spree, shoots maybe 3 rounds a year, and lets, just for the sake of argument, say 450 grains of lead (and it's not all lead, of course). The average gopher hunter might easily shoot 500 40 gr lead projectiles in a season.)
And when their data was not consistent with their hypothesis, they said, well, maybe somebody is shooting coyotes or cows or something.
They mention death by autos, electrocution, and commercial wind energy.
Had they been honest, and actually concerned about the plight of eagles, they would likely at least have had some quantitative data about relative mortality from each modus.
Guess how much grant money you are going to receive for looking at mortality from commercial wind farms, relative to grant money which negatively affects some hunters?
So, as I said, nothing pro or con copper or lead, just want science to be a little more precise.
First, assume the null hypothesis: the target variable has no effect on the outcome.
Collect the BLINDED data; no evidence they did this. Operator bias is impossible to avoid, and that has been known for 8 or 9 decades or so.
Then present your data. And I saw only one p value that looked significant and it was a negative correlation. And the numbers were so small it would be hard to show validity anyway. What if eagles which had higher lead levels from whatever source were more easily trapped?
Kind of like wolves prey only on the old and weak
This is because we now live in a world of scientism not science.
Copper pellets simulating oral exposure to copper ammunition: absence of toxicity in American kestrels (Falco sparverius) - PubMed
To evaluate the potential toxicity of copper (Cu) in raptors that may consume Cu bullets, shotgun pellets containing Cu, or Cu fragments as they feed on wildlife carcasses, we studied the effects of metallic Cu exposure in a surrogate, the American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Sixteen kestrels...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Eagles are apex predators maybe the lead they're eating is a way of population control?
