That damned North Dakota study is becoming the Kellerman of lead bullets. Yeah, blood lead levels were higher in those that ate game, but still FAR BELOW feddie guidelines (and if I recall correctly, below that of the average urban dweller).
And lead bullets in the environment don't magically disperse and contaminate everything. They develop impervious oxide coatings and sit in the soil inert (how do they think it is that civil war buffs can still find old bullets on 145 year old battlefields?). To ge lead into the ground wate, you have to grind it to a fine powder; bullet fragments are too big.
Yeah, and it's not even factually correct. The problem bullets are the thin-jacket expanding type, at least from the criteria set forth by the lead "ban"-ers. Thick-jacket bonded types and hard cast lead don't fragment on impact in most cases, and when they do, it's large chunks that are easy to spot and remove.
Also:
"Moreover, the evidence against lead bullets is now solid. In a North Dakota study of 738 people whose blood was tested, those who ate a lot of wild game had higher lead levels than those who ate little or none."
This is a source without a cite, we don't know anything about the sample, and it's an unqualified statistic because there was no test group of peers who don't consume game, or any mention of lead levels of the sample in other circumstances--or any anything supporting at all, such as groundwater or city water supply tests, testing of local food supply, habits of the people in the sample, etc. While most heavy metals have no nutritional value, they are naturally-occurring, and show up in traceable amounts in food and drinking water everywhere around the globe.
People can voluntarily choose non-lead ammunition for hunting NOW. Just as anyone who thinks we aren't taxed enough is welome to send additional donations to the IRS. I have never seen so many people come out in favor of overbearing government. Hegel certainly had it correct. Create a "problem," exaggerate the problem, propose a "final solution."
I take away from his article that he supports using FMJ types of ammunition for hunting?? If so, then he is promoting a practice that is both dumb and dangerous!!
That damned North Dakota study is becoming the Kellerman of lead bullets. Yeah, blood lead levels were higher in those that ate game, but still FAR BELOW feddie guidelines (and if I recall correctly, below that of the average urban dweller).
ReplyDeleteAnd lead bullets in the environment don't magically disperse and contaminate everything. They develop impervious oxide coatings and sit in the soil inert (how do they think it is that civil war buffs can still find old bullets on 145 year old battlefields?). To ge lead into the ground wate, you have to grind it to a fine powder; bullet fragments are too big.
I wish greenweenies had to study basic science.
Another politically correct A** kisser, just looking to ingratiate himself to who he perceives to be the future winners in this, "War on Guns"
ReplyDeleteYeah, and it's not even factually correct. The problem bullets are the thin-jacket expanding type, at least from the criteria set forth by the lead "ban"-ers. Thick-jacket bonded types and hard cast lead don't fragment on impact in most cases, and when they do, it's large chunks that are easy to spot and remove.
ReplyDeleteAlso:
"Moreover, the evidence against lead bullets is now solid. In a North Dakota study of 738 people whose blood was tested, those who ate a lot of wild game had higher lead levels than those who ate little or none."
This is a source without a cite, we don't know anything about the sample, and it's an unqualified statistic because there was no test group of peers who don't consume game, or any mention of lead levels of the sample in other circumstances--or any anything supporting at all, such as groundwater or city water supply tests, testing of local food supply, habits of the people in the sample, etc. While most heavy metals have no nutritional value, they are naturally-occurring, and show up in traceable amounts in food and drinking water everywhere around the globe.
People can voluntarily choose non-lead ammunition for hunting NOW.
ReplyDeleteJust as anyone who thinks we aren't taxed enough is welome to send additional donations to the IRS.
I have never seen so many people come out in favor of overbearing government. Hegel certainly had it correct. Create a "problem," exaggerate the problem, propose a "final solution."
I take away from his article that he supports using FMJ types of ammunition for hunting?? If so, then he is promoting a practice that is both dumb and dangerous!!
ReplyDeleteDoug
Newark, Ohio