• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The EPA is banning bullets!

geni said:
Of course you do. Since you monitor your emissions (and if you are playing around with heavy metals you should be) you just throw the data at them until they go away.
Click to expand...

We play around with heavy metals but we have no emissions. The big problem we have is that one of our buildings is a 100-year-old former battery factory (although we don't use it as such), and despite the fact that every chemical engineer in the county has certified it as safe for occupation, we have to jump through the hoops all over again every time a new inspector comes to town. Getting real tired of it.

That was more to do with pork barrelling/job creation Vs cost and capabilities.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I should probably add that I am on-and-off a contractor for Boeing, so I had a dog in that fight. But the Boeing-Airbus fight is a much bigger animal that this discussion, so I'm pretty much just going to see your point.

Eh in practice its just globalisation. There are a lot of industrial chemicals that are only made in a few countries there days. This is starting to cause problems since shipping firms are starting to ask questions about shipping some of the more interesting ones.
Click to expand...

Right, I was going to mention that during the Cold War, since the Soviet Union was the world's major supplier of titanium, the United States had an interesting time importing it for its own defense uses through a suitably intricate maze of intermediate front companies and puppets.
 
JayUtah said:
We play around with heavy metals but we have no emissions.
Click to expand...

I do a lot of testing for heavy metals. I don't belive in zero emissions. They may be too low to be a problem (certianly I've seen cases where a plant was releasing water that would have passed the EPAs limit for heavy metals in drinking water) but with modern tech you are always going to find something.

So you find it, quantify it and throw the data at the enviromental boys.

The big problem we have is that one of our buildings is a 100-year-old former battery factory (although we don't use it as such), and despite the fact that every chemical engineer in the county has certified it as safe for occupation, we have to jump through the hoops all over again every time a new inspector comes to town. Getting real tired of it.
Click to expand...

Are you throwing the paperwork at them? Because if you see them more than once you need more paperwork or you need to throw it harder.
 
geni said:
Of course you do. Since you monitor your emissions (and if you are playing around with heavy metals you should be) you just throw the data at them until they go away.
Click to expand...
How many decades could a company afford to do this for? In the instance I was discussing, it was going on 2 or 3 decades. This stuff ain't cheap--it's $120/hour for me to show up to your job site, plus expenses. And I was just one field grunt. A government agency can easily ruin a business by "I'm still not convinced", particularly if they will never be convinced.

Remember, we're not discussing someone honest here. We're discussing someone who's out to get a company--and an organizational structure that allows them to get away with it. Simply "throwing paperwork at them" doesn't always work, because the data isn't always the real issue. Personal vendettas creep into this business.

There are an awful lot of wars that suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
And an equal number suggesting it's true. Securing vital millitary resources is, well, vital to any war effort. Having a source at home makes that process much, much easier.

JayUtah said:
Yeah, that's why the "I know the real truth" claim is so bogus here. Lead has irreplaceable chemical and physical properties that make it ideal for many industrial applications, not limited to batteries.

It's akin to the petroleum-as-fuel controversy, when the vast majority of petrochemicals are not used as fuel but rather for things like plastics.
Click to expand...
Yup. People only see one aspect of things (batteries is just one that keeps springing to mind, with the rise of popularity of electric cars and the like). It's amazing how little most people understand about where the stuff they build their lives around comes from.
 
geni said:
I do a lot of testing for heavy metals. I don't belive in zero emissions.
Click to expand...

Indeed. What I mean is that our operation does not intentionally emit anything. But because we use various materials incidentally, or have them on the premises, we may inadvertently cause contamination. I wasn't claiming we had zero footprint; I just wanted to characterize our business operations accurately. Despite our support of industry, the owners and financiers of the company have liberal politics and authorize a considerable expenditure toward "green" endeavors and environmental responsibility. We consume vast amounts of electricity, for example, which we've arranged to be supplied from renewable sources.

Are you throwing the paperwork at them? Because if you see them more than once you need more paperwork or you need to throw it harder.
Click to expand...

We are an army of engineers supported by a comparatively small business and legal staff, so our throwing arm is weak. But good advice. We do keep calm and throw paper as we are able.
 
Dinwar said:
How many decades could a company afford to do this for? In the instance I was discussing, it was going on 2 or 3 decades. This stuff ain't cheap--it's $120/hour for me to show up to your job site, plus expenses. And I was just one field grunt. A government agency can easily ruin a business by "I'm still not convinced", particularly if they will never be convinced.
Click to expand...

Depends how long the company exists. There are companies out that work with interesting stuff that have records going back decades.

Depending on what you are doing you either end up training a member of staff to take samples and send them off for analysis or doing the analysis inhouse.

Remember, we're not discussing someone honest here. We're discussing someone who's out to get a company--and an organizational structure that allows them to get away with it. Simply "throwing paperwork at them" doesn't always work, because the data isn't always the real issue. Personal vendettas creep into this business.
Click to expand...

Well my experience with the UK EA is rather more positive (the main issue we have with them is that they tend to take rather a long time to do anything). But then I really do have the data to back my position. Its the difference between being about to say "its not us gov honest" and "about 2% of that is us and we are legaly allowed to do that".
 
geni said:
Depends how long the company exists. There are companies out that work with interesting stuff that have records going back decades.

Depending on what you are doing you either end up training a member of staff to take samples and send them off for analysis or doing the analysis inhouse.
Click to expand...
You've completely missed the point. THis sort of thing works fine if the regulators are rational, or at least allowing their opinions to be swayed by the data. However, that's not always the case. Some regulators are less interested in protecting the environment than in shutting down certain businesses--and if they really set their minds to it, they can do it.

But then I really do have the data to back my position.
Click to expand...
So did we. There were chemical signitures in the materials processed by the company we were working for, and those signitures weren't present in the soil, groundwater, or air. Didn't matter. The EPA still threatened a lawsuite against the company, and still caused all sorts of problems.

Its the difference between being about to say "its not us gov honest" and "about 2% of that is us and we are legaly allowed to do that".
Click to expand...
Not really. In the case I was discussing, it was the difference between the EPA saying "Oh, sorry, we were wrong" and the EPA saying "I don't care what the data says, this company is going to pay!" I saw at least two cases of outright slander (the company decided to not press charges, due to some....assertive....language on the part of some subcontractors with the company, but complaints were lodged against the EPA staff involved). I can't go into the details (you can probably guess why not), but suffice to say that this isn't MY interpretation of it, it was the interpretation of numerous parties and was the basis of several lawsuites.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that all EPA folks are like this. I've worked with some fantastic EPA folks as well. I'm just saying that the EPA's structure allows them to get away with this sort of thing (who watches the watchers? No one--not when any criticism of the watchers is branded as evil conservative anti-environmental hystaria), and that when one reads about the EPA going after someone one should make sure that that someone actually warrants such action, rather than it being a case of the EPA satisfying some personal vendetta.
 
Hell's afire, the 8 mm Lebel Balle D was made of solid bronze (or brass; you see both terms used) in 1898. The Germans were making steel- and iron-cored bullets when Christ was a corporal.

Somebody will correct my lazy recollection, but I think that both 7.62 and 5.56 NATO bullets are chiefly iron-cored, with only a leetle lead around the nose of the latter (inside the jacket, natch).

So you see how easily the evil Obamoids can be foiled? Whyn't one of you fellers email poor old Al West and reassure him?
 
Last edited:
The evil-gub'mint should ban the production and importation of gunpowder that is much harder to make ......lol
 
I wonder if anyone has performed lead and organ blood levels on people who frequently eat this lead contaminated venison?

Ranb
 
Dinwar said:
Yup. People only see one aspect of things (batteries is just one that keeps springing to mind, with the rise of popularity of electric cars and the like). It's amazing how little most people understand about where the stuff they build their lives around comes from.
Click to expand...

Electric cars don't use lead-acid batteries. Too heavy (reducing their efficiency/range considerably). They use lithium ion which has its own unique "issues". The weight of lead-acid batteries in my machines is beneficial because that weight is used as counter-balance. [/nitpick] lol

ETA: I should say "modern electric cars". I know there were some conversions for Ford Rangers (pick-up trucks) that used LA batteries but as I said they had a very limited range. I've also seen that in the UK they use electric milk flats (heard about one once that wandered onto the M and caused all sorts of problems). Their top speed is about 20mph IIRC. Again, with limited range.
 
Last edited:
Justin39640 said:
Electric cars don't use lead-acid batteries. Too heavy (reducing their efficiency/range considerably). They use lithium ion which has its own unique "issues". The weight of lead-acid batteries in my machines is beneficial because that weight is used as counter-balance. [/nitpick] lol
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction. :) I thought there might be something wrong with what I said, but couldn't figure out what it was.

ETA: I should say "modern electric cars". I know there were some conversions for Ford Rangers (pick-up trucks) that used LA batteries but as I said they had a very limited range. I've also seen that in the UK they use electric milk flats (heard about one once that wandered onto the M and caused all sorts of problems). Their top speed is about 20mph IIRC. Again, with limited range.
Click to expand...
some golf carts I've been on use lead batteries, too. I don't play golf; they were used to get from Point A to Point B on various manufacturing sites, usually ones that had been decommissioned and were being remediated (but that's a sampling bias; I was doing remediation testing at the time, so I didn't see too many operational facilities).

As for bullets causing lead poisoning while eating game, I'm not going to say they don't. However, I'd be much more worried about driving to pick up the meat than getting lead poisoning from it. Still, my dislike of biting into lead shot is one reason I use a rifle and go for head shots (not the most important one--that's the fact that a head shot is a much quicker kill when done properly--but it's a reason none the less). Just don't fry up the head and you're all right when you hit the thing in the brain.
 
Lead shot for shotgun ammo has been banned in Canada for years. So far I know if no duck hunters around here that have had trouble finding steel shot shells.
Iirc we also don't use lead for fishing sinkers anymore, however the bait shops have lots of those too.

So I still fail to see the problem for average Joe.

For industry, perhaps. I suppose that the EPA could dictate that only lead produced at smelters with enviromental standards that meet those for the USA can be imported. That would assure a level playing field for domestic smelting operations.
 
jaydeehess said:
Lead shot for shotgun ammo has been banned in Canada for years. So far I know if no duck hunters around here that have had trouble finding steel shot shells.
Iirc we also don't use lead for fishing sinkers anymore, however the bait shops have lots of those too.

So I still fail to see the problem for average Joe.

For industry, perhaps. I suppose that the EPA could dictate that only lead produced at smelters with enviromental standards that meet those for the USA can be imported. That would assure a level playing field for domestic smelting operations.
Click to expand...

Lead is only banned for hunting migratory game birds. I think this is the same in the USA? Steel had some shortages (and performance problems) early on but the manufacturers have figured it out pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom