EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition

[oldman45]

Look, we can't rest while they still consider the sinker ban.

The sinker ban is irrational. What are the chances that a sinker is going to be lost, and then found by a bird before it sinks into the mud and lost forever?

These enviro-crazed terrorists that come up with this stuff are extremely dangerous and cannot be left unattended for a moment. Constant vigilance through information will prevail against their small-minded ways.

Do not think that the sinker thing will go away, as these people get a toe-hold wherever they can. Nearly every one of us here are fishermen, and we're all in this together.

Don't dismiss it because bullets are safe! They aren't going to pry my lead sinkers out of my cold dead hands!

Andy, just buy a few boxes of them now. They are not something you will use a lot of and your grandkids would still be using them when they retire. The gov will not come get your sinkers as fast as they will your guns.

I see they have not gotten those old lead window weights under consideration.

 

[oldman45]

Lee,

Unfortunately, I do. In older homes where lead-based paint was used, it deteriorates over time, and paint chips and more importantly, lead-containing paint dust accumulates on window sills, floors, etc. Small children, whose systems are more developmentally sensitive anyway, and who spend a lot of time on the floor anyway, pick it up on their hands, and as we all know, with little kids, hands and everything else goes into their mouths. Lead poisoning -- which causes decreases in IQ and other neurotoxic effects -- results.

Even after chelation therapy, which over time removes the lead from their systems, the neurological damage and neurotoxic effects, persist.

This effects predominantly children from poor families, both white and black. When I worked at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, there was indeed a special clinic for these kids, and we would see sometimes hundreds in a year. I had several in my caseload, including Natalya P., a charming 7 year-old.

There are simple remediation techniques, but the ultimate solution is the removal of the lead paint, an expensive process.

So, while lead paint, lead emissions from leaded gasoline, and lead shot (waterfowl) are documented and serious problems,

Bullseye

Sorry but I do not buy this at all. Yes I agree that lead poisoning is bad. But hundreds of millions of us grew up in those houses that was painted with lead based paint and we never heard of lead poisoning until the government stepped in to ban it. Then gasoline was the same way. Nobody was being told that lead in gas made our engines run better and that the removal of leaded gas would make cars more expensive to produce.

Women smoking and drinking while pregnant, obese kids and a lot of other things have proven to be more harmful to people than lead based paint.

Getting more to the point, the government has banned many things that we used forever due to cancer concerns but we now have more cases of cancer than ever before. Until my grandmother died in 1965, I never knew of anyone that had cancer. Now at age 64, I have eleven friends, ranging in age from 38 to 69 that are in stage four. SO banning things did not help any of these people.

As a doctor told me once, it is in your genes. If you have good genes, you do not need to worry. If you have bad genes, you are going to have problems.

 

[oldman45]

How come nobody has mentioned lead wheel weights on cars?

There are millions of cars, each having at least four wheels. Each wheel will have at least 2 lead wheel weights and they will weight about one ounce. Hit a large pothole (Louisiana has a lot of them if anyone needs some potholes sent their way) and the weights will fly off onto the shoulder of the roadway and be consumed in the ground.

This lead ban attempt is just a tree hugger approach as is global warming and flu shots (more people died after getting them than did without them).

So now it had gotten to the point where you cannot sell a home made before 1975 due to lead base paint. Removing it will cost thousands of dollars. OK, so you also have to have energy efficient windows, modern appliances and a new air conditioning system before you can sell. Did I mention that the house has to have a recent roof replacement as well? All simply due to some government agencies wanting to control your life and tell you it is for your own good.

Sorry but the government has never helped me a bit nor have they saved me a dime.

 

[Bullseye 2620]

Oldman45, you "don't buy this at all."

May I politely ask what your credentials are, or, at least what your rational, scientific argument is that supports your position?

Unfortunately, both with respect to the lead poisoning of people, and of waterfowl, there is a substantial body of scientific evidence that remains unrebutted. For example, here is an article that explains the science with respect to split-shot lead sinkers:

http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/images/gtlo/articles/Do_Lead_Sinkers_Threaten_The_Environment.pdf

The problem, politically, is that when you take a no compromise position, and try to rebut good science with mere personal assertion, is that the people in the middle start to wonder about your rationality, and you lose credibility on everything else.

Life in the 1950s and 60s was much less complicated, to be sure. But tens of thousands of kids developed brain and other disorders, and millions of waterfowl needlessly died because no one was doing anything about it.

There are ready substitutes for lead sinkers. I've used brass and tungsten sinkers, and they work just fine. Anyway, the science indicates that only very small split-shot lead sinkers are the problem. I am fairly certain that if EPA moves to ban sinkers, they will focus on those because that is where the problem lies, and that is where the science is pretty well-developed. Not even the "tree huggers," a pejorative label which applies to most of the hunters in the country by the way, are talking about banning large sinkers, because these don't pose a problem, and the "tree huggers" know that the courts will insist that they back up their position with hard data based on good science. Don't lump shooters and hunters who belong to the Isaac Walton League in with the hippies who populate the Center for Biological Diversity. And why contribute to the degradation of the environment and the poisoning of birds, such as the loon, when there is no need to do so?

Many of us, here, and among the wider gun-owning public, are conservationists. We treasure our right to own and use firearms, and we also treasure the environment that gives us so much pleasure hunting, fishing, and just enjoying the tranquility of the wilderness.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is, your opinion. Wishing doesn't make things so, and the current trend toward putting on blinders and raising your voice, while it may prove satisfying in the short-run, is guaranteed to lead to political disaster in the long run. We're fortunate to have a majority in Congress that will insist, for the time being, on keeping the exemption for conventional lead ammunition in the Toxic Substances Control Act. Radical and scientifically unfounded opinions can only undermine our current position of strength.

Do yourself a favor: spend a little time, put your biases aside, read the science, ask questions, and consider workable alternatives that don't cost you a cent.


Bullseye

 

[Andy Griffith]

Looks to me that the only thing to do is to have highly accredited scientists to do an unbiased study without any preconceived notions or have been "bought off" by these people on the exact chances of small shot, sinkers or naturally occurring lead making their way into birds digestive systems.

Did the organization that proposed these rules actually conduct a study of appropriate scope and size to get a true sampling of the population of waterfowl and fish that may be affected?

 

[Bullseye 2620]

Looks to me that the only thing to do is to have highly accredited scientists to do an unbiased study without any preconceived notions or have been "bought off" by these people on the exact chances of small shot, sinkers or naturally occurring lead making their way into birds digestive systems.

Did the organization that proposed these rules actually conduct a study of appropriate scope and size to get a true sampling of the population of waterfowl and fish that may be affected?

You are quite right Andy. I spent a little time looking into this on-line, and while there seems to be some evidence supporting the ban of split-shot sinkers, no comprehensive study has yet been done. The states, e.g., Vermont and New York, that have banned these have done small studies, but those are limited to those states.

Let me say that I have worked around universities (most recently Virginia Tech), for a large part of my adult life and that most scientists, like most people, are honest. Apart from the severe consequences of faking results, universities and scientific journals have pretty solid mechanisms in place to prevent the fabrication of evidence, especially when outside funding is involved. I don't trust everything I read. I study up, learn what good science is supposed to look like, and then, evaluate each study that comes out on that basis. Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who, with reference to nuclear weapons reductions, famously quoted an old Russian expression to Mike Gorbachev: "doveryaĭ, no proveritʹ" -- "trust but verify?" I'm open to what the scientists have to say. That doesn't mean I accept everything published by someone somewhere. An open mind doesn't mean you have to be a patsy.


Bullseye

 

[novalty]

How come nobody has mentioned lead wheel weights on cars?

There are millions of cars, each having at least four wheels. Each wheel will have at least 2 lead wheel weights and they will weight about one ounce. Hit a large pothole (Louisiana has a lot of them if anyone needs some potholes sent their way) and the weights will fly off onto the shoulder of the roadway and be consumed in the ground.

Lead Wheel weights have almost gone the way of the dodo, as they are banned in several states now. http://www.leadfreewheels.org/ I do doubt that the EPA will be able to pass ban on traditional bullet lead, with the amount of ammo consumed by our armed forces each year.

FOX news has this recent story that look like the EPA turned down the petition to ban lead in ammunition, here is a link to their story. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/epa-rejects-calls-ban-lead-ammo-fishing-tackle/

 

[oldman45]

Oldman45, you "don't buy this at all."

May I politely ask what your credentials are, or, at least what your rational, scientific argument is that supports your position?

Unfortunately, both with respect to the lead poisoning of people, and of waterfowl, there is a substantial body of scientific evidence that remains unrebutted. For example, here is an article that explains the science with respect to split-shot lead sinkers:

http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/images/gtlo/articles/Do_Lead_Sinkers_Threaten_The_Environment.pdf

The problem, politically, is that when you take a no compromise position, and try to rebut good science with mere personal assertion, is that the people in the middle start to wonder about your rationality, and you lose credibility on everything else.

Life in the 1950s and 60s was much less complicated, to be sure. But tens of thousands of kids developed brain and other disorders, and millions of waterfowl needlessly died because no one was doing anything about it.

There are ready substitutes for lead sinkers. I've used brass and tungsten sinkers, and they work just fine. Anyway, the science indicates that only very small split-shot lead sinkers are the problem. I am fairly certain that if EPA moves to ban sinkers, they will focus on those because that is where the problem lies, and that is where the science is pretty well-developed. Not even the "tree huggers," a pejorative label which applies to most of the hunters in the country by the way, are talking about banning large sinkers, because these don't pose a problem, and the "tree huggers" know that the courts will insist that they back up their position with hard data based on good science. Don't lump shooters and hunters who belong to the Isaac Walton League in with the hippies who populate the Center for Biological Diversity. And why contribute to the degradation of the environment and the poisoning of birds, such as the loon, when there is no need to do so?

Many of us, here, and among the wider gun-owning public, are conservationists. We treasure our right to own and use firearms, and we also treasure the environment that gives us so much pleasure hunting, fishing, and just enjoying the tranquility of the wilderness.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is, your opinion. Wishing doesn't make things so, and the current trend toward putting on blinders and raising your voice, while it may prove satisfying in the short-run, is guaranteed to lead to political disaster in the long run. We're fortunate to have a majority in Congress that will insist, for the time being, on keeping the exemption for conventional lead ammunition in the Toxic Substances Control Act. Radical and scientifically unfounded opinions can only undermine our current position of strength.

Do yourself a favor: spend a little time, put your biases aside, read the science, ask questions, and consider workable alternatives that don't cost you a cent.


Bullseye

Well, I have been declared an expert in several areas in 793 court trials and in over 2000 depositons. Unfortunately, few of either were medically related. Past that, I have two daughters, one with a Ph.D. in Mecdical Science and one in her last year of med school, currently doing work for a large hospital chain as well as a first cousin having over 20 yrs with the CDC in Atlanta. As with many other discussions on things like cancer and such, we have talked about lead poisoning and other issues that are either controlled by or attempting control by the Government. They are in agreement with me. My own physician and I shoot together often and we have discussed the lead shot issue and he argees there are more things that affect people today that are a lot more common than lead poisoning. If you notice, this site has thousands of members and this thread has likely been followed by a good many of those. You are the only one that has stated any connection to someone with lead poisoning and none have stated it had effected them.

There are many things that were said to be problematic in life that were later found to be not correct. Depending on your age, I am 64, you likely grew up in a house with lead base paint. Many worked with lead based paint and there was a very small number of people that suffered any ill effects.

There was at one time a big uproar about tylenol causing Rye Syndrome. But then it was learned that tylenol was only considered to be a cause and it remains on the market. Other things were pulled from production due to health concerns and now have been proven to not have caused problems worthy of being discontinued.

My wife has major health issues that will seriously effect her life expectancy and is costing me thousands a month but the conditions were inherited. She had to have several bones replaced with titaniam (sp) and then had a reaction to it which lead to the metal being removed and another type implant being used. The drs stated that only 14 people out of 100,000 would have such a reaction. Does that mean that all of it should be pulled from the market?

Smoking mothers, heavy drinking mothers and even falls by infants can have caused many of the brain disorders attributed to lead poisoning. There is no way to know how many suits have been filed because it is easier to blame something that pays money than human error.

My best scientific fact I can offer in this issue is those that work in the battery making business. It is lead based and the workers are tested often for lead poisoning but the number found to have high readings of lead in their system is almost nil (there is a major battery plant located about 5 miles from me and I know some in their upper management). These are people exposed 8 hrs a day to the fumes, and the acutal lead and not just what would be contained in paint on a window sil. While some people in the world may have high readings, there are many other causes than lead based paint. Since such has been banned for many years, why do so many have high readings now?

My father died after suffering from Parkinson for many years. He could afford the best drs and the best hospitals. They told him he likely had been in heavy traffic and exhaust fumes caused the Parkinsons. Another hospital in the northeast told him it was from lead based paint but then a few years before his death, the drs at the VA told him there was no known cause for Parkinson and anything offered would only be an assumption or a guess.

Medical science is not an absolute. Let's say I have a severed rotator cuff. It could have happened in a car accident, a sports injury or a fall. Anything the drs would say caused it is only a guess on their part. The same with lead paint. It may be a cause but is it a primary cause and why were fewer people affected years ago than are now even with the removal of lead paint?

 

[Bullseye 2620]

I'll get in touch with the people who have been doing research on this for years at Johns Hopkins and get some photos to post which will show the differences in brain cells exposed to lead compared to those that have not been exposed. That ought to help prove the point.

While I admire your cousin's working at CDC, here is the official CDC position on lead poisoning in people:

CDC - Lead - Home Page

There's a lot of information there, but the current estimate is that some 250,000 kids have toxic levels of lead in their systems. That is not a small problem.

This table provides some details: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/StateConfirmedByYear_1997_2007Web.htm. Look especially at the column headed "Confirmed EBLLs (Elevated Blood Lead Levels) as % of Children Tested" -- it ranges from under 1% to over 95% in some states in some years. You will note that as you move forward in time, these percentages tend to decrease, indicating that lead abatement programs work.

Now, as to the battery workers argument, I don't know, but I will bet my Colt Series 70 1911-A1 that the reason for low levels of exposure is because the company involved, and OSHA, require respirators and other PPE, and enforce strict protocols on hand washing, street clothing, etc., to assure that the stuff doesn't get into people's systems, and isn't carried home on their clothes.

I am sure that your doctor is a fine physician, but unless he is a lead poisoning expert, his is just another opinion. Anyway, the phenomenon you describe -- friends and family members agreeing with you -- is well-known in my field. There's even a name for it -- the "social desirability factor:" people tend to voice opinions that they think are consistent with those of the person with whom they are talking. This is probably especially true when family members and close friends, e.g., your doctor, are involved.

I may very well indeed be the only person on this board taking this position. So what? Scientific truth is not decided by popular vote, thank Goodness, and I will stick to this position until someone comes along with hard scientific evidence to the contrary.

It may be a few days until I can get the photos from Hopkins. I've seen them though, and I will tell you that even lead poisoned 12 year olds can figure out what's going on when they look at them. More about that interesting story later.

And last, I appreciate your helping me to raise the tone of this debate. Personal biases and opinions just don't count for much in science. Unfortunately, in politics, they do, and that is one of the reasons that we are in the muddle we are on so many important issues confronting us today.


Bullseye