• 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.

Rare outbreak of common sense in Sacramento California

Skeptic Ginger said:
Lead in ammo is definitely an environmental hazard. Animals that feed on animals killed by bullets can suffer lead poisoning. Police need annual blood lead levels tested because they shoot regularly at the firing range.

Lead in Discarded Bullets a Hazard for People and Wildlife (Op-Ed)
Click to expand...

But how many officers or shooters in general actually get lead levels to the point of "poisoning"?

The body does eliminate lead via hair, sweat and urine. And it is considered to be an "essential trace element" though I don't know what it is essential for. Normal level is about 4ng/200ml (?) Symptoms in about 50% of adults start at about 50. 80% at 80.

I do know one shooter who's level was 16. He merely stayed out of one particular indoor range, and it dropped to 6 in a couple months. He replaced the indoor shooting with outdoors. So methinks outdoor shooting is safe. And that we do eliminate excess.

He had his level tested because of some concern over symptoms- short term memory, hair loss, teeth and gum problems, and sagging arm pits. But he is also in his late 50s. I believe he was showing normal aging signs.

So I think a zero tolerance policy for lead is asinine, maybe even counter productive for health reasons.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that Ca's lead ban will surviv the courts. The SCOTUS has lately held that even the EPA can not regulate bullet content, only the USFWS can, per the Pittman-Robertson act of the 30's.

Current rules govern lead for migratory fowl. Basically, no lead shot over water. The only shotgun ranges where lead is prohibited are over water too.
 
casebro said:
But how many officers or shooters in general actually get lead levels to the point of "poisoning"?

The body does eliminate lead via hair, sweat and urine. And it is considered to be an "essential trace element" though I don't know what it is essential for. Normal level is about 4ng/200ml (?) Symptoms in about 50% of adults start at about 50. 80% at 80.

I do know one shooter who's level was 16. He merely stayed out of one particular indoor range, and it dropped to 6 in a couple months. He replaced the indoor shooting with outdoors. So methinks outdoor shooting is safe. And that we do eliminate excess.

He had his level tested because of some concern over symptoms- short term memory, hair loss, teeth and gum problems, and sagging arm pits. But he is also in his late 50s. I believe he was showing normal aging signs.
Click to expand...

All I can do is cite my own experience, and having spent over 40 years shooting indoors on a very regular basis and reloading for revolver cartridges and obsolete rifle calibers with lead slugs, none of my lead tests came back with elevated lead levels.
 
jimbob said:
There are many EU countries which have partial or full bans on lead shot due to environmental damage - waterfowl apparently pick the shot for their gizzards, and do develop dangerous levels of lead in their body.
Click to expand...

Lead shot for waterfowl has been banned in the US for some time now.

Lead bullets also have a detrimental effect on the environment. The bullets break up and fragments wind up in the gut piles left behind by the hunters. Also, the microscopic lead fragments wind up in the meat consumed by the hunters.
 
So far as Moonbeam's vetoes go, I suspect that the hunters/ shooters have about the same political mix as the general population- which in Ca runs about 70% Dem. So unless there is a clear advantage to added gun control, he would lose support without vetoes.

I've felt historically that the Dems and Repubs were on the wrong sides- Dems should have supported the individual right to self defense inherent in gun ownership. But once one side chooses a plank in their platform the other side has just got to go with the opposite opinion.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Lead shot for waterfowl has been banned in the US for some time now.

Lead bullets also have a detrimental effect on the environment. The bullets break up and fragments wind up in the gut piles left behind by the hunters. Also, the microscopic lead fragments wind up in the meat consumed by the hunters.
Click to expand...

But again I will ask for actual human POISONING numbers.
 
Craig4 said:
It has to do with toxicity at ranges indoor and outdoor. You can get some pretty serious contamination going in popular outdoor ranges and it's a real health hazard indoors as we'll.
Click to expand...

That too.

Most outdoor ranges are little more than toxic waste dumps from all the lead.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005330


Edit to add.

http://www.leadispoison.com/uploads/HumanExposureLeadFromAmmoAlaska.pdf

Edit to add

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935109001467
Click to expand...

From your link: :"In Alaska, the majority of adults with BLLs ≥25
µg/dL were males who worked in the metal ore
mining industry (State of Alaska 2008a)" and there is much talk of "exposure", but I didn't see any mention of "poisoning". "Higher than normal BLL" is not = to "Poisoning".

What I am really asking is whether a "zero tolerance" is needed. And I haven't seen any reason to believe it is.
 
casebro said:
From your link: :"In Alaska, the majority of adults with BLLs ≥25
µg/dL were males who worked in the metal ore
mining industry (State of Alaska 2008a)" and there is much talk of "exposure", but I didn't see any mention of "poisoning". "Higher than normal BLL" is not = to "Poisoning".

What I am really asking is whether a "zero tolerance" is needed. And I haven't seen any reason to believe it is.
Click to expand...

Medically speaking, there is no bright line definition of "poisoning."

Regulation wise, the levels have been revised sharply downward.

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/blood_lead_levels.htm

The ultimate issue here is the impact on children.
 
But few children eat carrion.

Poisoning = having overt symptoms?
 
Xulld said:
Now we just need to have that stupid lead ban overturned . . .

It was for hunting!!!! As if that even accounts for the tiniest fraction of lead exposure! I would love to see someone connect the dots between hunting and lead exposure via eating the meat.
Click to expand...

People tend to eat meat fairly quickly which means the lead doesn't have have to oxidise so the shot should be intact and have time to be picked out. Your problem is the stuff left in the environment. It breaks down and enters the soil so you end up with large areas of lead contamination which isn't exactly very environmentally responsible.
 
geni said:
... Your problem is the stuff left in the environment. It breaks down and enters the soil so you end up with large areas of lead contamination which isn't exactly very environmentally responsible.
Click to expand...

Even the lead paranoiacs tell me that it takes extreme soil conditions to break down the lead. Like either very acidic or very basic.

And even if you swallow lead, it passes on through pretty intact.
And bullets imbedded in people get cloistered, and their BLLs are normal. (Blood Lead Levels)

And do you know that the source of the lead in the indoor ranges is not so much from the bullets, but the primers? The Lead Styphnate is what is absorbed via the lungs.
 
casebro said:
Even the lead paranoiacs tell me that it takes extreme soil conditions to break down the lead. Like either very acidic or very basic.
Click to expand...

Depends on the bullet and what you hit. The presence of various jackets can drive lead breakdown. The other problem is if the projectile isn't jacketed and hits say soil the outer part of the bullet is effectively sanded off creating a fairly fine powder which due to its large surface area to volume ratio reacts pretty quickly.
 
What alternative material could be used? Different metal? Plastic/Nylon?
-LF
 
LongFuzzy said:
What alternative material could be used? Different metal? Plastic/Nylon?
-LF
Click to expand...

Tungsten is pretty popular for military rounds; although fairly expensive by comparison. It's harder than lead, though, which makes it an armor-penetration risk, and would tend to over-penetrate under normal non-military use.

Steel has almost completely eliminated lead "bird shot" in shotgun rounds; although the larger "buckshot" rounds are still lead. Steel could also be used to replace lead in sidearms and long guns; but would not be an ideal choice. It is too light, with reduced kinetic energy, and does not expand on contact with most objects. Steel cores are used in military ammunition for armour penetration, because of this quality.

Lead is pretty much the ideal substance for small-arms civilian and law-enforcement ammunition. Very dense, highly malleable (soft enough to expand when striking a target, reducing over-penetration and enhancing kinetic-energy transfer); low melting point (making it much easier to work into bullets); non-radioactive; low toxicity; high abundance/low cost. The only other substance which would be an effective substitute is gold, but that's hardly likely to happen due to the sheer cost. There really aren't any good alternatives to lead for most small-arms ammunition. All the other elements are too toxic or radioactive, too low in density, insufficiently malleable, too difficult to work, too rare, or most commonly some combination of these.
 
Last edited:
jj said:
Numbers are not propaganda, they are facts.
Click to expand...
Pretending for a moment numbers can't be twisted in all kinds of ways to support "facts," I don't see how that's relevant to what you said, since you presented no numbers.

And even if you had, none of that is relevant to the actual topic, so can you pls direct your "Republicans are the root of all evil" frothings of the mouth to the political forum? TIA

OK pardon to the rest of you for addressing a sidetrack. Getting back to the actual topic: what is the reason for NOT wanting the lead ban? Sorry if I missed it.
 
If lead bullets or shot is allowed to sit in a body of still water for an extended period of time (say, a lake that has been used for duck hunting since the 1880s), would that water be safe to drink? Would any of the lead leach into the water?
 
jimbob said:
There are many EU countries which have partial or full bans on lead shot due to environmental damage - waterfowl apparently pick the shot for their gizzards, and do develop dangerous levels of lead in their body.
Click to expand...
This isn't just lead shot, but lead bullets as well.

A lead shot ban doesn't really affect hunting, because hunters don't rely on shot killing by expanding. Bullets are a different story, to get a humane kill you want a bullet that expands upon impact and lead is fantastic for this purpose. A bullet that doesn't expand will do less damage, and may well leave the animal able to run away only to die days or weeks later in agony. I don't know of any bullets not made of lead that will give good expansion upon impact with flesh and bone.
 
Craig4 said:
It has to do with toxicity at ranges indoor and outdoor. You can get some pretty serious contamination going in popular outdoor ranges and it's a real health hazard indoors as we'll.
Click to expand...
Jacketed or plated bullets solve that problem. That's not a reason to ban lead core bullets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom