Lead Poisoning

Overblown? Yes and No.
Click to expand...

OVERBLOWN?
No, because lead, in certain forms is a serious danger to health.

YES, because the real risks of chemically soluble lead in compounds is being used as the justification for the banning of the nearly harmless metallic lead, used in bullets and shot.

AND overblown because of the lengths to which the bans are being applied. Recently I heard about additional restrictions and requirements on the sale of 4 wheel ATVs, because there is lead in the paint on their frames, which children might eat!!! :eek:

Metallic lead (like in bullets and fishing sinkers, etc) does not dissolve in the environment. IT does not enter the water table. it simply lies where it comes to rest. You can still find lead bullets and musket balls that have been in the ground for hundreds of years, fully intact. They don't dissolve.

But this is what's being banned, along with the lead that actually is a risk.

I spent over 30 years as a certified Fissile Material Handler. Been in spill response teams, had both the 24 and 40 hr Hazwoper certs for decades. Worked hands on with Special Nuclear Materials and a large variety of metals and chemicals. Have worked a LOT with lead, and things much worse than lead. I believe I know what I'm talking about here, but its just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.

My opinion is that the ban on lead in bullets, shot, sinkers, etc., is an agenda driven political goal that is only tangentially justified by real science. In other words, essentially its "since some lead is hazardous under certain conditions, ALL LEAD MUST BE BANNED"

That's their mantra, and they have been beating that drum so long, too many people today don't realize that the song was written by hucksters. (pardon the mixed metaphors)

Ask them instead about the dangers of dihydrogen oxide. It's found in 100% of all cancer cells. Aspiration of only a few cc's can be instantly fatal....

Think about it...:D
 
Over 40 years of shooting, bullet casting ain't kilt me yet. Some wisdom posted in this thread and several gollywhoppers. If you have heated the lead to the point where it is vaporing off, you won't be casting with it either. Normal casting temps are quite safe. People worried about lead bullets in the woods contaminating an area (with the notable exception of a duck marsh), would be better off worrying about hunters farts contaminating the woods with a greenhouse gas. Just use common sense and don't eat it, drink from lead cups, or shoot yourself with it and all will be well. I suppose I shouldn't even mention how we used to handle and play with mercury from broke thermometers when we were kids.:D
 
.my grandad melted plenty of lead...When he wasn't entertain us kids by rolling mercury around in his bare palm.
 
Post #4 by JohnKSa is an excellent summary.

As a veterinarian, it is not at all rare to find small caliber pellets on x-rays. Removing them is not justified medically; removal of ingested metallic objects is very often important because the stomach acid frequently acts on the object in ways that make the metals absorbable. (The zinc in pennies is the culprit more often than you think. Pet owners are careless with pennies because their value is so low, and the zinc does serious damage to hemoglobin as it is absorbed.)

Medical people laugh out loud when we see treatment of gunshot victims focus on removing the bullet. The real focus is on repairing the damage - ligating bleeders, stopping air leaks in the lungs, closing perforated bowels, etc. The bullet is almost always completely incidental. If it is laying there right in front of you, you take it out, but you don't cause additional surgical trauma to chase it down.

As shooters, we should stay aware of ventilation during shooting and cleaning, and avoid ingestion of foods or liquids until we go to a clean area and wash up. Those reasonable precautions will suffice to keep lead levels below significant toxicity in most people.
 
Is the digestive system of animals that different than ours? When a kid swallows a penny parents are told to let nature take its course and wait for it to come out. If there a concern of toxicity wouldn't doctors do something to get the coin out ASAP?
 
I forget which site it's on and you've have to search for it but there is an excellent thread on either The Handloader's Bench or Reloader's Nest with actual X-rays of dead condors. Strange but all the toxic stuff in their crops wasn't lead. :eek: Try beer can tabs shiny gum wrappers and other bits of shiny stuff. There was some lead but not in enough quantity to be all that harmful.
How many here have hunted birds? What are the odds against you never having swallowed a single piece of bird shot? If your still up and kicking guess it didn't do you any damage.
I started casting bullets to feed a .38 Spl. revolver and 30-30 rifle at age 16.Ai 18 I was working for an outfit that made cast bullets under conditions that the EPA today would call appalling. After I left that job for a better paying one I still cast bullets for myself. Other that a four year hiatus while in the military I went back to it with a vengeance. That was back in late 1964 and I'm still doing it to this day. Having my blood serum levels checked as part of my yearly physical has been part of my regular routine for years.
What is dangerous is handling old bullet with that white substance on them. That's lead oxide and it is absorbed into the skin. Bad news stuff.
Guess my point is there's been so much "scare the folks" BS put out about lead and it's uses that some people must have a morbid fear that like a gun on the table; it will jump out and shoot you dead.
Paul B.
 
Personally I am concerned about lead in my blood stream. I have been reloading for over 30 years, shoot a lot and have spent 30+ years with a soldering iron in my hand with my head just over the aria that’s being worked on.
I don’t run around like a chicken with my head cut off but every year when I have my blood checked I ask the doctor to check for lead. Mine is slightly elevated but not in the danger zone.
I like some answers that go “I’m XX old and still living”. That’s great but what effect has it had on your mental ability? What effect has it had on your quality of life? It might have made a difference and you can’t tell.
There is no known sufficiently small amount of lead that will not cause harm to the body.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t cost much and most insurance don’t care if your doctor requests it. If you are concerned have it checked. Don’t walk around thinking that it can’t hurt you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning
 
There is no known sufficiently small amount of lead that will not cause harm to the body.
Click to expand...

And of course Wikipedia is the ultimate infallible source for everything...:rolleyes:

There is harm, and there is harm. If you consider detectable changes to be harm, then the statement is essentially correct. BUT there are detectable changes that do not physically impair function, and I do not consider them to be harm.

What I mean is the guy with "slightly elevated levels" who has no impairment of any function, hasn't been harmed. Yes, there is a point where definite harm occurs, no question. Too much is harmful, absolutely. Does that mean that any is harmful? Especially when at low levels, no harm is detected?

There are a great many things in this world that are harmful, even deadly at certain levels, but below those levels, the human body, essentially ignores them. The level harm occurs at is not absolutely fixed (at the lower end), an adult might ignore what harms an infant, for instance.

To say there is NO level of lead that is not harmful is, I think, an overstatement of reality. But, that's just me, who ain't dead, yet...;)
 
I forget which site it's on and you've have to search for it but there is an excellent thread on either The Handloader's Bench or Reloader's Nest with actual X-rays of dead condors. Strange but all the toxic stuff in their crops wasn't lead. Try beer can tabs shiny gum wrappers and other bits of shiny stuff. There was some lead but not in enough quantity to be all that harmful.
Click to expand...

I spent some time looking for that thread at both sites but couldn't come up with it. If you're able to post a link I'd appreciate it. That aside, I seriously doubt that trained wildlife biologists and environmental toxicologists are unable to distinguish between gum wrappers and lead fragments - and obviously they wouldn't be doing so on the basis of X-rays, but rather on actual necropsies and analysis of stomach contents. And, more importantly, they would also be analyzing tissue residues for lead content and comparing the results to known toxic concentrations before reaching conclusions on cause of death.

I know there's this theory out there that the whole condor/lead thing is some sort of nefarious government conspiracy to ban guns. Really? Government simply isn't that smart, or competent. The idea that "they" could assemble and control a large group of scientists and others, get them to fabricate data, and then have them stand behind that data publicly without someone convincingly blowing the whistle is untenable. I know and work with many wildlife biologists, some of whom are in senior political-appointee type positions, and most of them are gun enthusiasts, hunters, and fishermen who would never be involved in something like that, even if it could be done. Those who seriously believe that's what's going on will no doubt be comforted to know that tin and aluminum are much less toxic than lead, so they don't need to be concerned about being harmed (however defined ;)) by those hats they're wearing.

How many here have hunted birds? What are the odds against you never having swallowed a single piece of bird shot? If your still up and kicking guess it didn't do you any damage.
Click to expand...

That's all true enough, but to conclude from those observations that lead isn't toxic and (which I think is your point) that, because humans can ingest small amounts of lead without dropping dead therefore condors are not being killed by ingestion of lead, indicates a total lack of understanding of the effects of toxic chemicals on living systems. Different species can, and do, vary widely in their sensitivity to environmental contaminants. I can't get into detail because of a confidentiality agreement, but at the Superfund site I'm currently responsible for, the same quantity of the contaminant of concern that's an absolute death sentence for one species causes no apparent harm whatever to another, and still other species exhibit all manner of responses in between those extremes. This can be the case for species that are much more closely related than, say, humans and birds. That type of dose response is typical for every toxic chemical, so cross-species comparisons must be made with considerable caution.

I know it's great sport to make fun of scientists when the conclusions we reach don't comport with preconceived ideas about how the world works, but we're not all fools, and after many years of formal education and real-world experience we honestly do know more about these things than you might think.
 
Mr. Flyfish, are you referring to the same government that promised us that we could keep our doctors and insurance if we like them, that Bengazhi was caused by a video and IRS scandal was initiated by a few rouge agents in Cincinnati?

I see that your faith in our government is well-supported.
 
Yes, that's exactly the government I'm referring to. What was it about my post (Quote: "Government simply isn't that smart or competent.) that makes you think I have "faith in government"? For the record, I don't - not much, anyway.

What I said was that if the government tried to implement a conspiracy to eliminate guns by concocting a false story that condors were being killed from ingestion of lead, they would not be smart enough or competent enough to pull it off. That's very different than saying that condors aren't being killed by ingestion of lead, which is apparently what some believe in spite of knowing nothing about how that conclusion was reached.
 
Mr. Flyfish, are you referring to the same government that promised us that we could keep our doctors and insurance if we like them, that Bengazhi was caused by a video and IRS scandal was initiated by a few rouge agents in Cincinnati?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with lead poisoning? You attacked an expert in the environmental field who dared not agree with you.

Lead poisoning is a serious health issue. i've had lead poisoning: Luckily there were no lasting effects.

Kids living near the Tar Creek Superfund Site in OK had lead levels out of this world. That's right very few ever heard of the Tar Creek Superfund Site.

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/cases_03-04/TarCreek/TarCreek_case_study.htm
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, how do I know anyone on this site, or on any site for that matter, is an expert? Unless we go by the theory that anything untrue can't be put on the internet.
 
With all due respect, how do I know anyone on this site, or on any site for that matter, is an expert?
Click to expand...

You don't know for sure of course, but you should be able to get a sense of whether someone is credible based on the information they contribute and how they support it, the language that they use, and their ability to defend their position when questioned.

The larger question, however, is why you would ask about lead in your original post and specifically ask for input from "experts":

I want to hear from members that have scientific or medical backgrounds.
Click to expand...

and then discount the information you get because you can't be sure that those replying do in fact have the appropriate technical background. In other words, if you've already decided on what the answer should be, why bother asking the question?
 
With all due respect, how do I know anyone on this site, or on any site for that matter, is an expert?
Click to expand...

easy! We'll tell ya! ;)



I don't claim to be an expert, but one need not be an expert to know what one is talking about. Being an expert simply means we expect you to know more than we do....

I gave my background in an earlier post, 30+ years working hands on with hazardous material and industrial safety. Take that for what ever you wish.
 
Is the digestive system of animals that different than ours? When a kid swallows a penny parents are told to let nature take its course and wait for it to come out. If there a concern of toxicity wouldn't doctors do something to get the coin out ASAP?
Click to expand...

There are differences, of course, but the similarities are more striking than the differences.

I don't have any firsthand experience with children ingesting pennies. Perhaps the size of the child matters, or perhaps the metabolism of the zinc and/or the hemoglobin is subtly different, but I can assure you that the problems I described are well known in veterinary medicine, and pennies are retrieved from dogs and cats whenever possible.
 
And of course Wikipedia is the ultimate infallible source for everything...
Click to expand...
How about the Mayo Clinic :rolleyes:;)

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002473.htm
Symptoms

There are many possible symptoms of lead poisoning. Lead can affect many different parts of the body. A single high dose of lead can cause severe emergency symptoms.

However, it is more common for lead poisoning to build up slowly over time. This occurs from repeated exposure to small amounts of lead. In this case, there may not be any obvious symptoms. Over time, even low levels of lead exposure can harm a child's mental development. The health problems get worse as the level of lead in the blood gets higher.

Lead is much more harmful to children than adults because it can affect children's developing nerves and brains. The younger the child, the more harmful lead can be. Unborn children are the most vulnerable.

Possible complications include:
•Behavior or attention problems
•Failure at school
•Hearing problems
•Kidney damage
•Reduced IQ
•Slowed body growth

The symptoms of lead poisoning may include:
•Abdominal pain and cramping (usually the first sign of a high, toxic dose of lead poison)
•Aggressive behavior
•Anemia
•Constipation
•Difficulty sleeping
•Headaches
•Irritability
•Loss of previous developmental skills (in young children)
•Low appetite and energy
•Reduced sensations

Very high levels of lead may cause vomiting, staggering walk, muscle weakness, seizures, or coma.
Click to expand...



http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lead-poisoning/basics/symptoms/con-20035487
Symptoms
By Mayo Clinic Staff


Initially, lead poisoning can be hard to detect — even people who seem healthy can have high blood levels of lead. Signs and symptoms usually don't appear until dangerous amounts have accumulated.

Lead poisoning symptoms in children

The signs and symptoms of lead poisoning in children may include:
•Developmental delay
•Learning difficulties
•Irritability
•Loss of appetite
•Weight loss
•Sluggishness and fatigue
•Abdominal pain
•Vomiting
•Constipation
•Hearing loss

Lead poisoning symptoms in newborns

Babies who are exposed to lead before birth may experience:
•Learning difficulties
•Slowed growth

Lead poisoning symptoms in adults

Although children are primarily at risk, lead poisoning is also dangerous for adults. Signs and symptoms in adults may include:
•High blood pressure
•Abdominal pain
•Constipation
•Joint pains
•Muscle pain
•Declines in mental functioning
•Pain, numbness or tingling of the extremities
•Headache
•Memory loss
•Mood disorders
•Reduced sperm count, abnormal sperm
•Miscarriage or premature birth in pregnant women
Click to expand...
 
In general, I would trust information from the Mayo Clinic over Wikipedia.

Wiki:
There is no known sufficiently small amount of lead that will not cause harm to the body.
Click to expand...

Mayo Clinic:
lead poisoning can be hard to detect — even people who seem healthy can have high blood levels of lead. Signs and symptoms usually don't appear until dangerous amounts have accumulated.
Click to expand...

(thanks for the quotes Ozzieman)

The Mayo clinic quote says to me that there are levels of lead exposure that are not dangerous. (below dangerous levels)

The Wiki quote says to me that ANY LEAD AT ALL IS DANGEROUS. And that is what I disagree with. Not that lead is not dangerous (when levels reach certain amounts), we all know that.

What I disagree with the blanket statement that they made, that there is "no level of lead that is not harmful". I don't believe that to be true, or accurate, and apparently, the Mayo Clinic has a similar opinion.
 
The Mayo clinic quote says to me that there are levels of lead exposure that are not dangerous. (below dangerous levels)
Click to expand...

A couple of observations. First, the article from the Mayo Clinic that's being quoted is a breezy on-line layman's overview of issues related to lead poisoning, and I think even they (perhaps especially they) would be reluctant to parse it line-by-line and use excerpts from the article to reach conclusions about what is a very complicated dose/response relationship. That aside, I would read the statement very differently - "seem" healthy says to me that individuals can appear healthy when they are in fact not, and "signs and symptoms usually don't appear . . ." would indicate that damage can be done before outward signs of it appear. We all have known individuals who appeared to be perfectly normal and healthy only to find that they have a terminal cancer that must have been developing for months or more. Were they healthy before the diagnosis, even though they had no signs or symptoms? I would say not.

The full quote from the Wikipedia article is: "No safe threshold for lead exposure has been discovered—that is, there is no known sufficiently small amount of lead that will not cause harm to the body." (As an aside, although many like to disparage the information found at Wiki, in the entries on technical topics that I would consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable to judge, I have never found a significant error of fact (opinion is another matter), and that's also the consensus of several of my colleagues whose expertise is both broader and deeper than mine.) The first part of the Wiki quote most likely comes from Chapter 19 of the World Health Organization report on Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: " . . . no evidence exists for a threshold [for health effects of lead]" (it's on p. 1497), which is in turn summarized in WHO Fact Sheet No. 379 as "There is no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe." A citation for the research study from which that conclusion was derived is provided in the list of citations for Chapter 19 (Schwartz, 1994). The World Health Organization is the basis for much of the standard information used in toxicology and risk assessment, and they are considerably more authoritative than either Wikipedia or the Mayo Clinic.

So, I think the question of whether there is a threshold concentration for health effects of lead devolves into something like what your definition of "is" is. If one considers an individual who has no apparent symptoms, but may still be experiencing some effects, of lead exposure to be unaffected, or is prepared to accept that situation in their own lives, that's their decision. Others, and from everything I've been able to learn about lead and human health I think I fall into this latter camp, will choose to take appropriate actions to lower their lead exposure regardless of whether they exhibit any outward signs of being affected by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top