JohnKSa you started out pretty well but at the end of your statement you returned to the skeptic's position by labeling science you don't agree with as "junk."
That's just it. I DO understand the science and the arguments don't follow nor does the research prove the points it is claimed to prove.
For example, one study is quoted as saying that the lead "fingerprint" in lead found in condors with elevated blood levels is "similar" to that from "a sample of ammunition purchased in Southern California". This sounds pretty scientific but it leaves a lot of information out.
Is the lead in that sample of ammunition mined in California? If so, then the study is meaningless.
Does the lead in that sample of ammunition also have a "similar" fingerprint to sources of lead in the condors' environment? Again, a very important bit of information.
How "similar" is the fingerprint? Is it a conclusive match or only a rough similarity?
How specific is the kind of "fingerprint" used in the study. Are the chances of two different samples being similar 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? 1 in 1,000,000?
Are there other reasonable explanations for how that fingerprint similarity could come about? Were any other reasonable explanations even sought?
Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism that results in raptors being lead poisoned from metallic lead given the significant differences in their digestive systems versus seed/grain eating birds, particularly their gizzards?
Why don't they give us any information about this "sample of ammunition"? If Southern CA is like my area you can buy ammunition made locally from local materials or foreign materials or ammunition made virtually anywhere in the world.
The condor situation stands in stark constrast to the problem with waterfowl where there really is good evidence that lead poisoning is a valid issue.
Sure the precautionary principle imposes costs on society but are the social costs shared among us all a greater burden than the personal costs imposed by cancer or a baby with birth defects on hundreds and thousands of individuals and families?
This argument is an emotional argument, not a rational, scientific argument.
We all live with risk every day. It is an unavoidable part of life and attempts to eliminate it are futile. Are you going to have the speed limits set at 4 mph and then try to justify it by saying any inconvenience to society can't be compared to loss of children hit by cars and killed in car accidents?
We've all seen this same general argument used against guns as well by those with an agenda. "We have to get rid of guns because children are killed by guns." It's a great argument for those with "sound bite logic" or who reason with their feelings instead of their intellect but it doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny.
The problem is that if legislating away potential risk based on supicion not only infringes heavily on freedom it brings any productive activities to an end. Man could never have created air travel, gotten into space, learned to perform surgery, developed X-Ray machines or motor vehicles if he had taken the attitude that anything potentially risky had to be banned until it could be proven safe.
By the way, how did we get from talking about a population of 150 condors which may or may not be affected by lead ammunition to associating the hazards of lead ammunition with "cancer or a baby with birth defects on hundreds and thousands of individuals and families".
It's appalling that you think it's reasonable to use the word "science" in the same post with that sort of pseudo-scientific emotional terrorism.
Finally, perhaps some of you think it isn't ME or MY family getting harmed and I won't allow anyone to infringe on my LIBERTY nor will I suffer TYRANNY at your hands. But in a very large, very complex society what you or someone else calls "liberty" and "tyranny" can be pretty confusing.
Pure unadulterated male bovine excrement.
The difference between liberty and tyranny is not at all confusing although there are certainly people who want to impose tyranny and CALL it liberty.