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.

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

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?

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!”

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!

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

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.

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.

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!!!