Lead Poisoning

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.
Click to expand...

This is kind of my point. (I am currently having a tech issue with my security, which is blocking me from downloading an MSDS, so I can't check numbers right now)

Look an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet). Lead (and virtually every other chemical) have exposure limits. One of the limits you will find on an MSDS is he occupational exposure limit. This is the level deemed safe for workers to be exposed to, 8hr a day, 40hr per week.

"Everything is poison, what varies is the dosage"
- attributed to 15th century alchemist, Paracelsus

Yes, it is a matter of what "is is", when you say "harm", with no further qualifiers.

We are looking at primarily three levels of concentration here, and it works this way with nearly everything.

There is a level where the material can be detected in the body.
There is another level (usually a higher concentration) where damage/injury ("Harm" -to my way of thinking) from that material can be detected.
There is another level (higher again) where that "harm" shows symptoms and effects.

The next level up is the one that causes death (LDL 50 rabbit, for example) but that's not the main point for this discussion.

For something like a nerve gas, all these numbers might be the same, or extremely close.
I don't believe lead is in the same group. And making statements about "no level that is not harmful" (and I admit the possibility of a partial quote giving false impressions) simply does not match with the information from everyone else.

YES, lead has significant hazards, and the ALARA principle should be used, to keep exposure "as low as reasonably achievable". For good and sound reasons. That's not the horse I'm beating here. Using the common understanding of words, saying "any is harm" concerning lead, is inaccurate, (horse falls over) and I feel, alarmist.
(horse dies)

ok, I think I'm done with this one.....Next!?
 
I suggest we share the way we do things for shooting and hand loading to minimize lead exposure.

For myself, the number one thing is the primer residual. It is compound lead in particular form, and hence the most harmful.

1. I don't decap with decapping pin in resizing die. I decap with punch and hammer in plastic bag after soaking brass in water. No primer residual will go airborn.

2. Wet tumbling only.

3. Wear rubber gloves when loading or working on guns. Wash hands thoroughly with soap afterwards.

4. Have dedicated pair of boots for range.

5. After range session wash hands and face. Strip down in garage before entering house. Go straight to show once in the house.

We have little kids. I will do whatever I can to protect them.

-TL
 
Let's not fool ourselves by believing that government does not buy doctors and scientists to conduct "studies" in order to reach "conclusions" which support its agendas. It has been done before, don't think it isn't being done now.
 
My father is was an Emergency Room Doctor for 25 years in one of the most violent places in central Washington State. I've asked him about lead poisoning and his answers was quite insightful.

Q: Does leaving a lead bullet in somebody pose a long term poisoning risk.
A: No, lead poisoning is a highly debated condition and the people who claim lead poisoning also suffer from hereditary and personal lifestyle choices that are more attributed to the health conditions they are suffering from.

Q: What about all the research from the 50's-70's that show fetal problems from lead.
A: Pregnant woman drinking alcohol was still completely acceptable during that era. Many of those people display the text book signs of fetal alcohol syndrome and blaming lead is more of a diversionary tactic used by the leaches of society to try and win frivolous lawsuits.

Q: How toxic is lead considering I reload, cast, and shoot several thousand rounds of ammo per year.

A: The form of lead that is biologically a risk is when it's in it's dissolved aqueous phase such as with vinegar or other acids. As the roman elite did with their wine. In it's metallic state the human body is well evolved to separate it out as it is with other heavy metals such as Uranium. Remember we are evolved life forms, these toxic metals existed in nature long long before the first homo species descended from primates. Washing your hands and using proper ventilation is a good practice in itself and will reduce your exposure substantially.
 
This thread is an excellent example of what I've said earlier about throwing resources at a an identified risk simply because it exists. Numerous reputable examples of evidence/professional opinions indicating the exposure is far down the list of things to worry about, and yet there are nonetheless immediate replies to the effect of "but the risk! We must do something!" Well, the same can be (is) said for gun control.

Removing lead from gas was about 90% of the cure (if not a good deal more) for public lead exposure. Paint a good chunk of the remainder. It has been a while since I read the article, but this has been seen in South American countries where some leaded fuel is still used, while adjacent nations have advanced beyond it.

TCB
 
Removing lead from gas was about 90% of the cure (if not a good deal more) for public lead exposure. Paint a good chunk of the remainder. It has been a while since I read the article, but this has been seen in South American countries where some leaded fuel is still used, while adjacent nations have advanced beyond it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's all quite true. But we're not talking about risk to the "public", as in the general public. We're talking about risk to those of us who are active shooters, reloaders, and bullet casters. Someone who doesn't participate in these activities obviously has nothing to worry about from exposure to lead resulting from them. That's not the case for us, and that's what this discussion has been about.
 
For a previous question to me .No I don't have a link to the group of doctors who want to ban all lead. But I've known about them for years.
I have had lead poisoning along with others from a poorly ventilated indoor pistol range .Each of us seemed to have different symptoms.
Have a HVAC engineer examine and redesign the range. Have medical tests .Typical treatment [at least in the past ] was the use of the chelate EDTA to remove lead .

One subject that still confuses us is the formation of "metal whiskers " ! While as a metallurgist it interests me the practical aspects is the replacement of lead-tin solder with a low lead solder . This solder has a higher melting point not wanted in modern electronics ,more difficult to solder , and promotes the formation of whiskers more so than lead-tin solders. Whiskers often short out electronic circuits !! Like the ones in the airplane you fly in !! :eek: Even Wiki knows about this !
 
FlyFish said:
Yes, that's all quite true. But we're not talking about risk to the "public", as in the general public. We're talking about risk to those of us who are active shooters, reloaders, and bullet casters. Someone who doesn't participate in these activities obviously has nothing to worry about from exposure to lead resulting from them. That's not the case for us, and that's what this discussion has been about.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, flyfish. I had never worried about lead till I started shooting and hand loading.

-TL
 
My father is was an Emergency Room Doctor for 25 years in one of the most violent places in central Washington State. I've asked him about lead poisoning and his answers was quite insightful.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, unless an ER physician can claim some specialized knowledge and/or additional education in toxicology, risk assessment, epidemiology, and anthropology (among other technical disciplines), his/her opinions on this particular issue are only marginally more valid than any other lay person's, and carry as much weight as, say, a toxicologist's opinion on how best to treat a gunshot wound. That said, I'm going to give your father the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's a very talented and successful physician and that you're just misunderstanding his responses, because those responses contain errors of fact and/or just don't make any sense, as outlined below.

Q: Does leaving a lead bullet in somebody pose a long term poisoning risk.
A: No, lead poisoning is a highly debated condition and the people who claim lead poisoning also suffer from hereditary and personal lifestyle choices that are more attributed to the health conditions they are suffering from.
Click to expand...

The question of how it is possible for individuals to live with a large piece of elemental lead, or lead alloy, in their body and yet not have harmfully elevated serum lead concentrations is a perfectly reasonable one, and was asked and answered earlier in this thread. Lead poisoning, in the sense of whether it is real, is not, by any definition, "a highly debated condition" whether we believe that it can result from shooting sports or not. To argue that all, or most, or even many cases of lead poisoning are in fact "hereditary" or the result of "personal lifestyle choices" unrelated to lead exposure strains the bounds of credibility, if not common sense.

Q: What about all the research from the 50's-70's that show fetal problems from lead.
A: Pregnant woman drinking alcohol was still completely acceptable during that era. Many of those people display the text book signs of fetal alcohol syndrome and blaming lead is more of a diversionary tactic used by the leaches of society to try and win frivolous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

I am unfamiliar with the research from that period related to fetal development and [purported] lead exposure, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with this discussion. Science and technology have both progressed a bit in the intervening decades, and the toxic effects of lead have been demonstrated beyond any doubt. Those of us here may, and apparently do, differ about what those effects are, and at what concentrations they become apparent, and whether our shooting activities can result in problematical concentrations. That's all fine, but to try to claim that because (even if true) some "leaches of society" several decades ago incorrectly claimed that fetal damage caused by FAS was caused by lead, therefore lead is not toxic, is not even good logic, much less good science.

Q: How toxic is lead considering I reload, cast, and shoot several thousand rounds of ammo per year.

A: The form of lead that is biologically a risk is when it's in it's dissolved aqueous phase such as with vinegar or other acids. As the roman elite did with their wine. In it's metallic state the human body is well evolved to separate it out as it is with other heavy metals such as Uranium. Remember we are evolved life forms, these toxic metals existed in nature long long before the first homo species descended from primates. Washing your hands and using proper ventilation is a good practice in itself and will reduce your exposure substantially.
Click to expand...

It is simply untrue that the only form of lead that "is biologically at risk" (which I'm translating as "poses a risk to humans") is that which is dissolved in acidic solutions. Numerous, as in hundreds if not thousands, of research studies have shown that undissolved elemental lead is absorbed in significant quantities by the lungs and digestive tract. In addition, the human body is not in any way able to "sort it out", whatever that means, as evidenced by the way lead accumulates in the bones and other deep tissue reservoirs and is only eliminated slowly from the body once the source of exposure is identified and eliminated. Lead does not occur in nature in highly concentrated forms, so humans were not exposed to lead in anything other than trace amounts (and therefore would have been unlikely to develop any evolutionary response because there would have been no selection pressure [yes, I know there are other evolutionary mechanisms]) until technology developed to the point at which lead could be refined from lead ore, which is far too recent for evolution to be a factor. Studies have shown that equivalent serum lead concentrations derived from analysis of early human remains would have been in the range of 0.018 mcg/dl, as compared with the current average in the US of approximately 3 mcg/dl (decreased from something in the mid-teens prior to the phaseout of tetraethyl lead additives in gasoline).

We can, at least, agree on your last sentence, although I have to point out that it's logically inconsistent with just about everything else in your post.
 
You know since we're talking about lead poison, I shoot at an outdoor range (with baffles and metal roofs) and I cast outdoors only. Last week I was smelting ingots from range scrap on the propane stove. Right at 38 lbs this produced and took a couple hours. Afterwards and into a day later I felt a bit tired, sluggish and had headaches. I stood upwind, but of course the wind did circle a few times, wore gloves and did not eat or drink anything during this time until I had showered afterwards.jackets were placed in a metal 13x9 pan to cool then bagged up and sealed by tying the bags.The only thing I can think of is I did not use a respirator. Not sure that stove didn't produce some carbon monoxide being on for that long either. Feel fine now but I'm not doing it again without a lead rated respirator.
 
I occasionally shoot jackrabbits out here in the desert. Its usually with a shotgun firing lead shot or a rimfire shooting lead bullets. I leave the carcass in the desert for the scavengers.

When I return to that area, usually within a few days, I never find any remains of the dead hare. I guess some creature or creatures had a good meal.

But I have yet to find a dead scavenger that died from lead poisoning.
 
My wife's uncle, at age 17 was shot in the chest. Doctors decided to leave the bullet where it was.

He died, 70 years later, from a stroke.

I know lead has serious risks, but aren't we really over reacting just a bit?
 
Let's not fool ourselves by believing that government does not buy doctors and scientists to conduct "studies" in order to reach "conclusions" which support its agendas. It has been done before, don't think it isn't being done now.
Click to expand...

Yes, I suspect that some of that does go on. Actually, from what I've seen with government funding it tends to work the other way - some researchers increase their chances of receiving funding by writing grant proposals for studies that are intended to support the agenda of the granting agency. I think that some of the work on climate change (which clearly allows for a lot more "wiggle room" than, say, a laboratory study of absorption of lead), for example, falls into that category. Where you find the most egregious violations of good science, however, are in studies funded by private industry where I've seen the most blatant tweaking of study design and conclusions (but not, at least in my experience, outright fraud) to support the industry position. And even there, it's the exception rather than the rule.

But, even with that as a given, let's similarly not fool ourselves by assuming that because the results of some studies may be incorrect, or even outright faked (a la the notorious now-discredited study on autism and vaccines) that the results of all studies are incorrect. Science has a way of being self-correcting in that research is published for all to see and, potentially, duplicate and, most certainly, critique. While the government may be the largest source of funding for basic research, it's not the only source, and even if the government tried to push an agenda by buying some number of doctors and scientists (and see my earlier remarks regarding that relative to the condor issue), work funded by other sources would eventually disprove it.

In addition, even if the ("the" meaning "our") government were "buying" results with the long-term goal of using them to ban guns and/or their use, much of the work on lead has been done by researchers in other countries that would appear to not have much of an agenda regarding lead toxicity and guns. Why, for example, would the British government spend money to fund research leading towards a gun ban? - they've already got a gun ban over there. Ditto for most other countries where this work has been, and is being, done. The weight-of-evidence of the research on lead toxicity clearly indicates that lead is a health risk, but a health risk that can be managed.
 
But I have yet to find a dead scavenger that died from lead poisoning.
Click to expand...

First, how would you know that a dead scavenger died from lead poisoning? Or maybe you're saying that you just don't find any dead scavengers? I rarely see a dead scavenger either, or (with the exception of road kills) dead anything else. But scavengers are clearly dying from a variety of causes, so where do they go? Maybe the same place the dead hare went, as do the thousands of wild animals around us that die every day only to quickly disappear. I don't find that to be compelling evidence that lead is not toxic.
 
Lead poisoning probably won't kill a person, but it will make him sick. My gunsmithing instructor told us that he had massive lead poisoning once. He was very sick. The treatment was very unpleasant. The cause? The big one was test firing in a closed room in their shop. Smoking while sweeping the room at the end of the day. A lot of people firmly believe lead is no harm. They eat and drink while they shoot. That's their choice. Others, myself included, choose otherwise.

-TL
 
Lead poisoning probably won't kill a person, but it will make him sick.
Click to expand...

Lead poisoning has killed many people, thousands?, hundreds of thousands?, I don't know just how many have died of lead poisoning through the human history.

I recall reading on one site of a Police Trainer who worked at an indoor range and he died from the accumulation of lead particles he breathed.

Lead is no joke.
 
No, lead is not a joke, but some of the things being done in the name of protecting us are.

And not the funny kind.

Anyone heard if ATV dealers are now under the additional restrictions proposed some time ago, because of the possibility of children eating the lead paint on 4 wheeler chassis? I never heard if that passed, or not....
 
Children and pregnant women are particularilly susceptable !!! A poorly ventlated into range is the worst.
If you are working on an old houce , scrapping and sanding , get a test kit for lead !!
 
I love how simple things can become so complicated.

The OP questioned the legitimacy of the hyped health and environmental concerns over LEAD AMMUNITION. Not paint, not smokestacks, not gasoline.

The idea that a handful of lead pellets from ammunition spread over acres of land is going to pose a heath hazard or environmental hazard is ridiculous, and entirely political. The few lead pellets we've probably all swallowed eating rabbits and sqirrels will likely do less damage than the broken teeth you get from biting into steel shot.

Yes, concentrations of lead in the body can cause health issues. Small amounts are normal. Lead is not a man made substance. It is naturally ocurring.

As for game getting shot, and dying from lead poisoning, considering the fact that they were shot would lead me to believe the intent was kill to begin with. Far more waterfowl got shot and flew away unrecovered from inferior steel shot than ever died from lead poisoning.

Yes, animals can eat shot. That a dozen shots over 1000 acre swamp is going to result in ducks diving, finding, and eating my shot are pretty unbelievable.

Yes scavengers could eat shot animals and ingest a bullet or pellets. There are what, like a dozen California condors in the entire state? How many acres are there in California? What are the odds that one of those dozen birds will find the unrecovered deer you shot, and eat the bullet?

Politics is taking something that COULD happen, even if 10 million to 1 odds, and making people believe that unless you pass a bunch of nonsensical laws, likely WILL happen.
 
Anyone heard if ATV dealers are now under the additional restrictions proposed some time ago, because of the possibility of children eating the lead paint on 4 wheeler chassis? I never heard if that passed, or not....
Click to expand...


Actually these were not legislative restrictions but regulatory restrictions by Consumer Products Safety Commision, an unelected, nonlegislative regulatory agency that answers to no one, like the EPA. The ban was passed based on total lead content in children's products, and made no concessions for contained and inaccessable lead. Had nothing to do with paint. Children's ATVs had electic start, because children typically didn't have the muscle for mechanical starting. Even though the ATV batteries were sealed, and located under the seat which was bolted on, they were banned to keep children from unbolting the seat and eating the lead/acid batteries. Today, children's ATV have a kick start or a pull rope start, and cannot have a battery operated electric starter. I'm just one of the lucky parents, whose child never ate the battery, but I'm sure this CPSC regulation prevented thousands of other kids from doing do. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top