Pro-Hunting Groups Attack Science
Posted on March 30th, 2008 by blue collar scientist
Update: I have some moose in the freezer - meat which came from hunting the animal, just in case anyone is under the impression there are moose ranches in Alaska - and I’ve made arrangements to have some of the cuts medically imaged in search of lead fragments sometime in the next week! Stay tuned for results! Post follows:
But what else is new, eh?
This time, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (whose website is down as I write, returning 0-length html documents), an industry group representing firearms manufacturers and ammunition makers, has issued a press release that savages scientific results as being cruel and unscientific. The release, with a little additional reporting from AP writer James McPherson, is getting wide play today.
The story starts last year, when Dr. William Cornatzer of Bismark, North Dakota took 100 one-pound packages of venison that had been donated to food pantries, and imaged them in a CAT scanner. The CAT scan showed that more than 60 of the samples had been contaminated with high levels of lead from the bullets used to kill the animals. Every package had some level of contamination.
Cornatzer is a dermatologist and professor at the University of North Dakota medical school in Grand Forks.
The North Dakota Health Department followed up with its own tests, which confirmed Dr. Cornatzer’s results. Minnesota and Iowa evaluated the results, with some media reporting they also conducted their own tests. As a result, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa have alerted food pantries in the state to the contamination and suggested they not distribute the meat.
Lead poisoning results in reduced cognitive abilities, nausea, abdominal pain, irritability, insomnia, headache, seizure, coma, and death. It can also result in constipation, vomiting, weight loss, anemia, kidney damage, learning disability in children, and reproductive damage and infertility.
Dr. William Cornatzer explains how the contamination occurs:
“When [a bullet] hits the deer, it sends little bits of schrapnel-type lead that are almost liquid at that point because of the speed the bullet is going,” explains Cornatzer.
The impact is enough to scatter the deadly toxin throughout the entire animal. Luckily, not all bullets are the same. Dr. Cornatzer says you should avoid bullets that have lead in them that fragment when they hit deer. Instead, you should choose something that`s lead free that mushrooms.
Cornatzer’s tests were spurred by previous scientific results showing that California condors were getting lead poisoned by eating animals killed and abandoned by hunters:
Cornatzer said he became concerned after hearing about possible lead fragments through his membership in the Peregrine Fund of Boise, Idaho, a group that promotes the conservation of birds of prey, including peregrine falcons and California condors.
The organization says lead from bullets in the carcasses of animals is primarily responsible for lead poisoning that has endangered the condors.
A lead bullet shot from a high-powered rifle “fragments into hundreds of tiny pieces,” said Rick Watson, vice president and director of international programs for the Peregrine Fund. “Usually a hunter cuts away damaged meat, but the lead sprays through a large part of the animal,” he said.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has apparently coordinated multiple statements from the same talking points attacking the discovery that lead from bullets results in widespread contamination of venison:
“It’s alarmist and not supported by any science,” said Lawrence Keane, a vice president and lawyer for the Newton, Conn.-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. “High quality protein is now taken out of the mouths of needy, hungry people.”
Not supported by any science? So a doctor using a CAT scanner and a health department using materials assays are doing something unscientific? Only in his dreams.
Says Doug Burdin, a lawyer for the Tucson, Ariz. group Safari Club International:
“This is disheartening, and we certainly don’t think this program should come to an end on the unscientific assessment that has occurred here.”
Does Doug think that dowsing rods were used to find the lead?
And what is with the lawyers passing judgement on scientific results? I’ll grant that not all lawyers are scientifically ignorant. But these two seem to be.
Jason Foss, president of Pheasants for the Future (and of unknown lawyer status), says:
“Sportsmen have been shooting deer for hundreds of years with lead bullets with no problems.”
Poor Jason apparently has no idea that it has only been a few decades that hunters have been using high-powered ammunition with fragmenting lead bullets. As muzzle-loaders know, balls do not fragment on impact; neither do a number of bullet types designed to mushroom rather than fragment.
This is just another sad example of ignorant people lining up to attack science without seeing the opportunities that scientific results present. Hunters and their families will enjoy improved health if they respect the dangers of lead poisoning. Guidelines about the amounts and frequency of consumption of hunted meat could protect non-hunters. And manufacturers of premium, non-fragmenting ammunition have certainly not been well-served by their industry organization, which has essentially just taken a crap all over their business. NSSF had a tremendous opportunity to look like the good guys, if only they had chosen to respond opportunistically to the news; but instead they seem to take a stand against medicine, CAT scanners, and good public health. And in favor of lead in food.
Tags: BPSDB, bullet, contamination, hunter, hunting, lead, lead contamination, National Shooting Sports Foundation, venison, William Cornatzer
March 30th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Lead is NOT liquid at the moment of impact, but it is plastic and the projectile can break up, with bits of various sizes traveling up to several centimeters within most tissue. The only way any could travel farther is if some stopped within the vascular system and the heart remained able to pump it elsewhere.
There are also various lead-free projectiles on the market which would make this who controversy moot.
The California Condor/Lead controversy has recently come alive again after the accuracy of the reports of lead contamination have come into question.
I would expect this to go for quit awhile longer. I would not be too quick to use such information to demonize hunting until unbiased scientific study has been completed. It takes longer than you think.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Scientific??? You state that the good doctor is a Dermatologist and Professor.
Is a Dermatologist a Scientist? Is a Professor a scientist?
Putting 100 items of 1 pound units through a CAT Scanner does not make a Scientific Proven Result.
Has the “good doctor published his “scientific” experiment and results in any reputable scientific journal? Have these experiments and results been peer reviewed?
Pls point me in the direction of the FULL scientific publication and peer review.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“Lead is NOT liquid at the moment of impact….”
I suppose that is why the Cornatzer said “little bits of schrapnel-type lead that are ALMOST liquid at that point” instead of saying they WERE liquid at that point.
And what exactly is the difference if the lead migrates through the animal inertially or by the heart pumping it around? You still have lead in the meat, either way.
“There are also various lead-free projectiles on the market which would make this who [sic] controversy moot.”
Which I suppose is why Cornatzer recommended using them. Did you bother to read the post or any of the linked stories?
“I would not be too quick to use such information to demonize hunting until unbiased scientific study has been completed.”
For one thing, accusing someone of “demonizing hunting” would be appropriate if someone had said something like “Hunters are bloodthirsty, trigger-happy drunken high-school dropouts walk out into the woods and blast away at baby animals indiscriminately and then deliberately feed lead-contaminated corpses to their children.” Nothing like that has happened here. Cornatzer was very reasonable in suggesting ways to continue hunting and have safe meat. It makes sense that he would do so, since Cornatzer is a pretty avid hunter, as a quick Google search will show. And I’m an avid shooter, with less than zero interest in tearing down shooting sports. Making such a reckless suggestion merely shows you are dishonest.
Second, what exactly about Cornatzer’s results are “biased?” What is the source of bias? Since Cornatzer is an avid hunter, do you really think it is a good idea to cannibalistically attack people who agree with you about the larger issues surrounding hunting?
As for the data - did you see the picture? Do you think it is make-believe? If so, why do you believe that? Does the CAT show some other substance, not lead? If you think so, why do you think it? Did the NDHD’s materials assays not reveal lead like they say? Do you have any data, any real knowledge at all? Around here, you’re more than welcome to disagree, but you have to give a reason based on facts. You are not welcome to just make stuff up and take cheap shots at people you’ve decided to dislike.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“Is a Dermatologist a Scientist? Is a Professor a scientist?”
Yes, a dermatologist is a scientist. A witch-doctor is not a scientist.
“Putting 100 items of 1 pound units through a CAT Scanner does not make a Scientific Proven Result.”
Actually, n=100 is widely used in scientific studies impacting public health. And when it comes to hazards, n of much less than 100 is considered adequate - sometimes n=1 is good enough.
“Has the “good doctor published his “scientific” experiment and results in any reputable scientific journal? Have these experiments and results been peer reviewed?”
You misunderstand how science works, Chris. A CAT scanner’s ability to detect metal is already scientifically published and peer-reviewed. Materials science has already published peer-reviewed methods to detect lead in food. Standard scientific processes for both of these tests have already been established. There’s no need to publish these results again.
“Pls point me in the direction of the FULL scientific publication and peer review.”
Would you make the same childish demand for FULL scientific publication and peer review if you had been shot and the surgeon was about to operate on the basis of a CAT scan? Does a doctor need to prove every time he uses a CAT scanner that it works?
Show some understanding of the issues here, or go away.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
What is a blue collar scientist?
No “real name” on this blog, no qualifications listed.
Just who are you?
I note in Mark’s response that he “politely and courteously” put his point of view across. No name calling, no pack drill!
It is you who appears to have become upset because Mark queried your response to the NSSF’s position
It would appear also that your are the one wanting to “make stuff up and take cheap shots at people you’ve decided to dislike”.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“No “real name” on this blog, no qualifications listed.”
Well, Chris…. You are welcome to disagree here, but you are not welcome to lie here. Please take it elsewhere.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Where have I lied?
March 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
“No “real name” on this blog, no qualifications listed.”
My real name is on this blog and my professional background is discussed.
I’m happy to have discussion and debate here, but you are not welcome to make stuff up. If that is going to be your “debate” tactic, please practice it elsewhere.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
It is entirely possible that Chris Morris was not lying. Chris may simply be too lazy to click on the About the BCS link on your home page. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that anti-lead <> anti-hunting? In fact you can be anti-lead and pro-hunting at the same time. I would certainly prefer to feed my family lead-free moose.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
It *could* be that Chris wasn’t lying, and was merely lazy or ignorant. But he’s already argued that doctors aren’t applied scientists, that CAT scans don’t provide scientific results, that to prove a deer has a gunshot wound you need many more than 100 CAT scans of more than 1000 deer, while for people you’d only need one, that lead detection methods don’t detect lead, that health departments aren’t scientific, that populations of 100 are useless in public health studies, that scientifically determined results must be peer reviewed to be valid, and he was obviously warming up to deliver an assassination of the BCS’s character as a way of avoiding arguing the data.
Since that’s the typical technique of science haters, that would seem to make the “liar” hypothesis more plausible than one of ignorance (granted - they aren’t mutually exclusive). Though I probably would have said that somebody doing this was merely dishonest.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:22 am
I guess this is just another reason for me to get out and practice more with my compound bow.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 am
Whenever I attempt to defend myself against your accussations, you keep deleting my posts.
It is beginning to irk me cosidering that you, yourself have called me a liar and members of your community have called me lazy, science hater, a character assasin,
Is that how you run a debate, by deleting the posts of those who have a different opinion to yourself?
It just goes to show how petty, insecure, ignorant and intolerant you are!!!
Just glad you’re a bluecollar scientist and not a white coated one!!!
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 am
Chris, I saw several of comments from you show up here. One of them said you had seen the “about the BCS” page. I then commented, pointing out that if you had really seen that page, you had no business making false claims like “No ‘real name’ on this blog, no qualifications listed.”
I also saw you call the BCS anti-hunting - another character assassination from you, and one that isn’t true. I know BCS personally, and can testify that although he doesn’t himself hunt, he maintains membership in several pro-hunting organizations, allows hunting on his land, and very avidly engages in shooting sports. (Though after encountering someone representing hunting as disreputably and venomously as you, I wouldn’t be surprised if he and others post their land.) If you’d bothered to read the above, you’d see he’s critical of the NSSF not only because they are attacking sound science, but also because they’ve done something that is likely to undermine the industry they represent, and the sport the industry supplies. I happen to agree that is likely. I posted a comment about that here too.
Then my comment, along with a bunch of your trolling, disappeared. I was a bit surprised by that and e-mailed BCS asking why my comment had been removed, and he explained that a database upgrade had gone bad and an old version of the “comment table” had been used to restore from backup, and that things were still not working well with the commenting system as yet, but the comments should come back shortly. I’m cool with that.
You, by contrast, just fly off the handle and post accusations and name-calling, with multiple exclamation points. You’re a troll.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Don Ameche:
I could not find the About BCS when I made that remark. I then commented later that I had found it, which was recognition of BCS credentials being on the site.
I’m sorry but at the time the comment was NOT a lie. Besides instead of directing me to the page he called me a liar.
As to saying BCS was anti hunting is another untruth. Never at any point did I say that BCS was anti hunting, If I did I would clearly retract that statement. Just show me where I said it.
If wanting to have some input into a subject, is in your terms “trolling, then so be it.
I am willing for BCS to take me to court if that will return his reputation.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Well I’m a highschool student so I might not be seen as any use of the scientific community, but I am an avid hunter and I do keep up to date with current issues regaurding hunting/ anti-hunting movements. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the main goal of a debate like this one supposed to be to come to an understanding of another person’s point of view? I understand and respect when someone doesn’t agree with another person but aren’t we supposed to treat each other with the respect that the other deserves? Calling someone a “troll” or “insecure, ignorant and intolerant” is just plain childish.
Now regaurding lead ammunition; I would think if there was even a small health risk we should stop using it. We can do without bullets that fragment and replace them with bullets that mushroom. Companies such as Hornady have developed long-range, high velocity rifle ammuntion that definately does the trick.
I believe that Dr. Cornatzer’s experiment should be considered bias until tests using lead-free ammunition can be used for a proper comparison and then reviewed by his fellow scientists.
-Brandon
April 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Hi Brandon,
Welcome, if I may say it, to the blog.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the main goal of a debate like this one supposed to be to come to an understanding of another person’s point of view?
No, I’m afraid that’s not the case here. The rules here specifically constrain debate to matters of data and its interpretation. Of course friendly discussion is always allowed.
With specific reference to Chris, he arrived and immediately posted a series of untrue statements, and immediately started to attack the character of one of the bloggers and another of the commenters here. He was treated with the respect he deserved: all who comment here are shown respect until they lose it when they behave badly.
I believe that Dr. Cornatzer’s experiment should be considered bias until tests using lead-free ammunition can be used for a proper comparison and then reviewed by his fellow scientists.
But Brandon, you, like the others, have missed the fact that Dr. Cornatzer’s results were reviewed by other scientists. The presence of lead as indicated by the CAT scans was confirmed by scientists at the North Dakota Department of Health. Case closed.
I’m afraid you are also a little weak on the scientific method. You propose that lead-free ammunition should be tested, and I will agree that it should, and I will add that I think mushrooming ammunition should be tested too. But you must understand that doing this experiment would tell us which is safer, lead ammunition, lead-free ammunition, or mushrooming ammunition. This isn’t the right kind of experiment to do to determine if a selection of venison cuts are contaminated with lead. For that kind of determination, you’d do a CAT scan to identify areas to sample, and then you sample them and run tests like the Health Department did.
BCS makes a very good point above: If you had been shot, or had a tumor, are you going to apply this standard before allowing the doctor to operate on you? Are you going to tell the surgeon that you won’t consent to the knife until he runs tests of his CAT scanner on different kinds of ammunition/tumors and then has the data evaluated by a bunch of other doctors before accepting the results? That would be crazy, but that’s the standard you propose when you suggest that Dr. Cornatzer’s tests should be considered biased.
Bias in science arises from a flaw in experimental methodology, but you haven’t explained what the flaw is here. If there is a flaw, it doesn’t matter that you are a teenager - just point it out. If you are right, you are right!
April 24th, 2008 at 7:14 am
“But Brandon, you, like the others, have missed the fact that Dr. Cornatzer’s results were reviewed by other scientists. The presence of lead as indicated by the CAT scans was confirmed by scientists at the North Dakota Department of Health. Case closed.”
I guess you didn’t understand that I was saying it shouldn’t have been reviewed until tests with other lead-free ammuntion was conducted.
“Bias in science arises from a flaw in experimental methodology, but you haven’t explained what the flaw is here. If there is a flaw, it doesn’t matter that you are a teenager - just point it out. If you are right, you are right!”
I know the definition of the word bias very well believe it or not. And I pointed out the bias of using only lead ammunition instead of having a comparison to use such as other ammunition types such as lead-free ammunition. If you talk to any high school science teacher they would agree to have a valid test you need a control (lead-free ammuntion) as a comparison to have an unbiased result. I am not disagreeing that something showed up un the CAT scan, in fact I would be suprised if nothing did. Was the substance specificaly identified as lead? I don’t remember reading of any such investigation.
“I’m afraid you are also a little weak on the scientific method. You propose that lead-free ammunition should be tested, and I will agree that it should, and I will add that I think mushrooming ammunition should be tested too. But you must understand that doing this experiment would tell us which is safer, lead ammunition, lead-free ammunition, or mushrooming ammunition.”
I also know the proper scientific method. Hard to believe when I have to use it in science class every day scince the 4th grade isn’t it? Do you really know what mushrooming ammunition is? It’s a copper alloy ballistic fired from a high velocity rifle or a handgun. They are also known as hollow points. Mushrooming ammunition does not fragment due to the slits cut in the leading edge of the projectile that only allow it to strip back and make the round expand in the animal to achieve a more effective and humane kill. These mushrooming ammunitions are very widely used by hunters/ police forces worldwide.
You say doing this experiment will tell us if lead or lead-free ammunition would be safer but how can we know that if lead-free ammunition was never tested?
So maybe you aren’t a teenager, but as you said: “just point it out. If you are right, you are right!”
April 24th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Was the substance specificaly identified as lead? I don’t remember reading of any such investigation.
Yes, it was. The posting above reports “The North Dakota Health Department followed up with its own tests, which confirmed Dr. Cornatzer’s results.” The articles linked to go into more detail about the South Dakota Health Department. One of the articles also reports that health departments in two other states also tested the meat and also found lead contamination.
If you talk to any high school science teacher they would agree to have a valid test you need a control (lead-free ammuntion) as a comparison to have an unbiased result.
Well, I’m no high-school science teacher. I’m a working research scientist. And any science teacher who tells you what you say above would be wrong.
If you are looking to see if there is lead contamination in meat, then you would need to do an experiment with lead-contaminated meat, using uncontaminated meat as a control. But in this particular case, it is so critical to the economy and to public health that we be able to detect such contamination, that these kinds of experiments have already taken place. What has been developed as a result of the experimentation are several protocols for reliable detection of lead contamination in meat. Cornatzer followed the most sophisticated and reliable protocol available. First, he imaged the meat to determine sampling locations. And then those sample locations were tested for lead using standard methods. These chemical assays constitute a control on the imaging portion of the experiment. Two separate lines of evidence - CT imaging, and chemical assay - agree that the meat is contaminated.
Now, if you wanted to test lead-free ammunition, and compare its to lead ammunition, you would need to have two experimental populations (meat with lead-free ammunition, meat with lead ammunition) as well as a valid control. I agree with you if you are saying that Cornatzer’s suggestion of using a non-fragmenting round is not experimentally supported (it does make good sense, however). But that’s not what Cornatzer was exploring. He was looking for a toxicological hazard to health. He doesn’t need to do a full suite of experiments to determine if lead is dangerous to health - they’ve already been done - nor must he test to see if some lead bullets fragment upon impact - those tests have also been done - nor does he have to compare lead bullets to any other kind of bullet - if there is lead in the meat he is testing, that’s the end of the story. That lead is there, will remain there, no matter how many other kinds of experiments he does. We already know very well how to determine if food is contaminated with lead, and we already know that ingesting lead is dangerous, so there’s no point to making that issue any more complicated than that.
Do you really know what mushrooming ammunition is?
Yes, I do. It is not what you say it is:
It’s a copper alloy ballistic fired from a high velocity rifle or a handgun. They are also known as hollow points.
Mushrooming ammunition can be made of many materials. One of the more effective is lead with a copper jacket, using a chemical to prevent copper oxide from forming, thereby allowing the lead to bond to the copper. Another method is to use multi-partition jacketing - in which a variety of materials are layered in a specific way to hold the bullet together while still allowing it to expand on impact. Some multi-partitioned ammunition uses nickel and copper, others add steel or iron alloys, some use only one of these materials in addition to the lead core. Some hold the jacket onto the rest of the bullet using mechanical means, often with an annular recess at the base of the bullet.
All of these methods can be used to make mushrooming ammunition both with, and without, a hollow point. One of the advantages of not using a hollow point is that the resulting bullet has more mass, and given a matching load, impacts with more energy than a hollow point. (Newton’s laws and all that.) That’s actually the reason that non-hollow point mushrooming bullets were developed.
I think I won’t go on; at some point, you need to do your own research.
You say doing this experiment will tell us if lead or lead-free ammunition would be safer but how can we know that if lead-free ammunition was never tested?
I don’t understand the question. Doing the experiment would tell us that, but we can’t know until we do the experiment. Right? In other respects I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood what I wrote. Here it is again:
“You propose that lead-free ammunition should be tested, and I will agree that it should, and I will add that I think mushrooming ammunition should be tested too. But you must understand that doing this experiment would tell us which is safer, lead ammunition, lead-free ammunition, or mushrooming ammunition.”
In what way does this series of experimental populations trouble you? Do you have a problem with any of the contingent variables? Is there an improper treatment of dependent or independent variables? In what way? How would you improve upon this selection of experimental populations?
May 12th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Do you really know what mushrooming ammunition is?
Yes, I do. It is not what you say it is:
It’s a copper alloy ballistic fired from a high velocity rifle or a handgun. They are also known as hollow points.
Well I usually use ammunition that has a zinc core and a copper jacket for the specific purpose of keeping the meat of whatever animal I am hunting at the time contaminent free. So I will admit it was out of line for me to take such an agressive aproach without thinking and for that I apologize.
I think one thing we can definately agree on is that lead ammuntion should be discontinued if it is proven to be harmful to the consumer of the meat.
“All of these methods can be used to make mushrooming ammunition both with, and without, a hollow point. One of the advantages of not using a hollow point is that the resulting bullet has more mass, and given a matching load, impacts with more energy than a hollow point. (Newton’s laws and all that.) That’s actually the reason that non-hollow point mushrooming bullets were developed.”
I was refering to ammunition that has a polymer tip that strips away on impact for the same reasons to make the bullet more aerodynamically efficient and harder hitting (once again I sould have specified). An example of this would be some types of Hornady match ammunition and 30-30 rounds from companies such as Winchester have made breakthroughs in this area so you don’t have to use blunt-tipped ammunition in a tubular magazine anymore.
-Brandon
June 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
It seems to me that the key issue has been obscured here… probably not intentionally, but effectively nonetheless.
There’s little doubt that lead bullets, INCLUDING muzzleloader balls and bullets, leave traces of lead in the tissue of an animal as they pass through. The more violently expanding bullets tend to distribute more widely, of course, but even those projectiles like the “bonded” bullets tend to leave some lead behind.
The argument that should really be on the table right now surrounds the threat to human health that this lead represents. And as of right now, there’s no evidence whatsoever to indicate that it poses a danger to humans through consumption… even through heavy consumption over time.
True, the research is pretty limited, and more investigation would be welcomed. However, based on the number of people around the world eating animals killed with lead ammunition without indication of lead poisoning, it seems to me that it’s pretty clear what the research will show… there’s no risk to human health.
I wait to be corrected… not by hypothesizing desktop “scientists”, but by real research and medical PROOF.
So far, all Cornatzer accomplished was to stir a tempest in a teacup. His x-rays are spectacular, but prove little beyond the fact that lead spreads more widely from the wound site than some of us may have expected.