Thread: Lead bullets and their risk to human health

Yeah there's no safe level of lead for human consumption. Try not to eat it.


I manage the risk while continuing to use lead bullets by not taking meat from close to the likely fragmentation zone, and sometimes head or neck shooting animals. Using smaller bullets also helps - there's simply less lead around to begin with. Maybe this explains the .270 people. Many of the studies on the subject are a bit misleading - while lead consumption certainly is a risk, mitigation by specific butchery practises appears to be really effective at reducing the risk of exposure. Look at Hampton 2023 - read between the lines - very low lead in Kangaroo/Wallaby meat - because they are all headshot, so the bits exposed to fragmentation are not eaten. The factor by which the venison mince exceeded guidelines was minute in comparison to the quail. The butchery approach of those that donated the venison mince isn't known - was it "right up to the hole" from some? There are a number of other studies that make this abundantly clear

"The highest concentrations were found in samples from edible meat from the area close to the wound channel (max 3442 mg Pb/kg), followed by the saddle (max 1.14 mg Pb/kg) and with the lowest levels in the haunch (max 0.09 mg Pb/kg)"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30412876/


The cost and performance of non-lead alternatives simply doesn't match lead in many ways so I'm balancing things as I see fit.


It would be interesting to get a blood lead test. I eat a lot of bluefin tuna though so I'm probably packed to the gills with methylmercury


While lead is a real risk to humans and wildlife especially scavenging avians, there are also a few researchers around the world who have made a career out of finding "anti-lead" research to be a lucrative path to funding and dominate the field, so while there is valid research to be done there are often issues, bias and omissions in the existing peer-reviewed literature. Unfortunately peer-review is far from a foolproof process as anyone in science should know, the quality of reviewer comment can be highly variable. Jordan Hampton appears to be one of these and has released a series of papers that while peer-reviewed, are of pretty questionable value.

Originally Posted by gimp

Yeah there's no safe level of lead for human consumption. Try not to eat it.


I manage the risk while continuing to use lead bullets by not taking meat from close to the likely fragmentation zone, and sometimes head or neck shooting animals. Using smaller bullets also helps - there's simply less lead around to begin with. Maybe this explains the .270 people. Many of the studies on the subject are a bit misleading - while lead consumption certainly is a risk, mitigation by specific butchery practises appears to be really effective at reducing the risk of exposure. Look at Hampton 2023 - read between the lines - very low lead in Kangaroo/Wallaby meat - because they are all headshot, so the bits exposed to fragmentation are not eaten. The factor by which the venison mince exceeded guidelines was minute in comparison to the quail. The butchery approach of those that donated the venison mince isn't known - was it "right up to the hole" from some? There are a number of other studies that make this abundantly clear

"The highest concentrations were found in samples from edible meat from the area close to the wound channel (max 3442 mg Pb/kg), followed by the saddle (max 1.14 mg Pb/kg) and with the lowest levels in the haunch (max 0.09 mg Pb/kg)"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30412876/


The cost and performance of non-lead alternatives simply doesn't match lead in many ways so I'm balancing things as I see fit.


It would be interesting to get a blood lead test. I eat a lot of bluefin tuna though so I'm probably packed to the gills with methylmercury


While lead is a real risk to humans and wildlife especially scavenging avians, there are also a few researchers around the world who have made a career out of finding "anti-lead" research to be a lucrative path to funding and dominate the field, so while there is valid research to be done there are often issues, bias and omissions in the existing peer-reviewed literature. Unfortunately peer-review is far from a foolproof process as anyone in science should know, the quality of reviewer comment can be highly variable. Jordan Hampton appears to be one of these and has released a series of papers that while peer-reviewed, are of pretty questionable value.

Classic line

For all that are concerned about eating a little lead have a think about this.

All of the brass water fittings in your house contain lead, not just the ones you can see but every brass coupling, elbow and tee behind your walls. Previous legislation was up to 4% lead in brass was acceptable but new legislation is so called lead free which is max 0.25% lead content. This comes into affect November 2026.

Might want to consider re-plumbing your house.

I will say it again , as kids we used to have a mouth full of lead slugs most of the school holidays and more . I are now in my
70's and haven't turned nutty yet , nor my mates .

Originally Posted by HILLBILLYHUNTERS

I will say it again , as kids we used to have a mouth full of lead slugs most of the school holidays and more . I are now in my
70's and haven't turned nutty yet , nor my mates .

Thanks. I had forgotten about putting slug gun slugs in my mouth until you mentioned it.

Originally Posted by Rushy

Thanks. I had forgotten about putting slug gun slugs in my mouth until you mentioned it.

That'll be the lead poisoning. It does affect the brain first

Originally Posted by gimp

That'll be the lead poisoning. It does affect the brain first

Ha ha ha ha good on ya.

Originally Posted by No.3

More than once, in tents, caravans, boats, shacks, caves, mines and houses. But, IF (and I'll be the first to admit that this is unlikely due to the level of idiot that usually tries to operate these things) - IF the precautions are followed there is a much reduced risk of using gas burners indoors. And most of that revolves around the long-term effects of increased moisture levels which carry combustion by products into the living environment.

If you deliberately operate a gas burning appliance indoors for testing purposes without following the safety precautions you are either trying to rig the test results, don't know what you are doing or deliberately doing it to highlight the issues and how unsafe the practice is.

That was the game. They were scare mongering.
A gas stove has never been considered unsafe in an average kitchen. All in the name of profit. They were also recommending atmospheric monitoring in your home. What a fkn joke. :lol:

Originally Posted by HILLBILLYHUNTERS

I will say it again , as kids we used to have a mouth full of lead slugs most of the school holidays and more . I are now in my
70's and haven't turned nutty yet , nor my mates .

Ah....but how do you know you're not crazy? I mean I think I'm responding to a post on a message board but theres a fair to even possibility that I'm dressed in white, staring at a wall in a padded cell saying I LOVE LEAD! I LOVE LEAD! I LOVE LEAD! Thats the thing about being crazy, you don't know you're crazy!

Originally Posted by Tahr

I cant find a single scientific peer reviewed research finding that says lead in bullets is not dangerous. A quick search brings up hundreds that says it is.

E.g. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...Ammunition.pdf

I expect that there is something in all of this.

You do get that many search engines, Google in particular, operate on a confirmation bias protocol. I'm not saying lead isn't bad for you but we're all subject to confirmation bias from within as well as from without

Originally Posted by Oldbloke

That was the game. They were scare mongering.
A gas stove has never been considered unsafe in an average kitchen. All in the name of profit. They were also recommending atmospheric monitoring in your home. What a fkn joke. :lol:

There is always a meta game. You choose if you look for the good, the bad or the conspiracy. It might just be that it was about public good - encouraging people to keep their tight cooking spaces ventilated. The many poor sods who are dead from carbon monoxide poisoning could have done with that advice.

Originally Posted by HILLBILLYHUNTERS

I will say it again , as kids we used to have a mouth full of lead slugs most of the school holidays and more . I are now in my
70's and haven't turned nutty yet , nor my mates .

Won't do any harm, might just make you feel a bit sluggish

If you are into hunting and shooting, the most lead poisoning you will get is from handling fired cartridge cases, ie reloading ammunition. The soot and carbon is contaminated with lead.

Compared to the miniscule and vague risk of possible lead ingestion from eating wild meats, handling cartridge cases is a definate risk - unless you simply wash your hands after doing it. Let us remember that you cant get lead poisoning unless you actually eat it.

Also, lead poisoning is not cumulative - if you get some lead in your system, your body will clean it out after a months time.

Originally Posted by gimp

Yeah there's no safe level of lead for human consumption. Try not to eat it.


I manage the risk while continuing to use lead bullets by not taking meat from close to the likely fragmentation zone, and sometimes head or neck shooting animals. Using smaller bullets also helps - there's simply less lead around to begin with. Maybe this explains the .270 people. Many of the studies on the subject are a bit misleading - while lead consumption certainly is a risk, mitigation by specific butchery practises appears to be really effective at reducing the risk of exposure. Look at Hampton 2023 - read between the lines - very low lead in Kangaroo/Wallaby meat - because they are all headshot, so the bits exposed to fragmentation are not eaten. The factor by which the venison mince exceeded guidelines was minute in comparison to the quail. The butchery approach of those that donated the venison mince isn't known - was it "right up to the hole" from some? There are a number of other studies that make this abundantly clear

"The highest concentrations were found in samples from edible meat from the area close to the wound channel (max 3442 mg Pb/kg), followed by the saddle (max 1.14 mg Pb/kg) and with the lowest levels in the haunch (max 0.09 mg Pb/kg)"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30412876/


The cost and performance of non-lead alternatives simply doesn't match lead in many ways so I'm balancing things as I see fit.


It would be interesting to get a blood lead test. I eat a lot of bluefin tuna though so I'm probably packed to the gills with methylmercury


While lead is a real risk to humans and wildlife especially scavenging avians, there are also a few researchers around the world who have made a career out of finding "anti-lead" research to be a lucrative path to funding and dominate the field, so while there is valid research to be done there are often issues, bias and omissions in the existing peer-reviewed literature. Unfortunately peer-review is far from a foolproof process as anyone in science should know, the quality of reviewer comment can be highly variable. Jordan Hampton appears to be one of these and has released a series of papers that while peer-reviewed, are of pretty questionable value.

Nonsense. You watch too much woke TV. If that was the case Lead would be banned and we wouldn't be digging it up. lead acid batteries, lead dive weights, lead fishing sinkers, none of them would exist.

Dont know about NZ, but workers/employees in AU are considered safe and healthy with low levels of lead in their blood. Regular testing is required. At a trigger point workers are removed from potential exposure for a few months until their lead blood levels return to normal Note, no medical intervention is required. The body removes the lead naturally.

These are full time workers exposed to lead daily. Yes, they are required to, follow procedures, wear PPE, use mechanical equipment such as extraction systems to reduce exposure. But none the less many have low levels of lead in the blood almost constantly.

Lead exposure is easy to manage. Young children are a different matter.

A large part of the problem is people repeating that nonsense on the www without checking the facts or having any knowledge on the matter.

And I'll add, similar nonsense is spruked about CO. Yes, It can be dangerous, but is exceptionally easy to manage.

I think its about time society in general, especially politicians are educated to understand that life is full of risks. Nothing is 100% safe. The exposure of lead should be very low on their list of priorities.

I don't own a TV. Eat all the lead you like then.