The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

I get not shooting lead over water, I get lead contaminates ground, but didn't we dig it all out of the ground in the first place? Sorry to be so ignorant. A lot of lead in one place, like a clay ground will contaminate the land, I get that and I understand there might be things you then can't do without cleaning it up.

But it not like dumping uranium, the ground is full of lead. ?

safetyfirst wrote:I get not shooting lead over water, I get lead contaminates ground, but didn't we dig it all out of the ground in the first place? Sorry to be so ignorant. A lot of lead in one place, like a clay ground will contaminate the land, I get that and I understand there might be things you then can't do without cleaning it up.

But it not like dumping uranium, the ground is full of lead. ?

Compared to other contaminants it's not that bad, in that you're unlikely to suffer any irreversible damage even from a one-off acute exposure; but, long term exposure, even at a low doses can cause serious illness...there are good reasons why it has been taken out of petrol, paint, water pipes etc...

...and pure lead is not the main contaminant; it's the compounds it can form while it's being 'weathered' in the ground while mixing with other chemicals (acid rain can rapidly oxidise lead) - I think Sim said that oxidisation stopped it being a problem earlier, but it's the opposite; in that pure lead isn't too bad but the compounds formed by oxidisation are.

Do me a favor (meant in the nice way) look up lead contamination/lead pollution on google, have a read, and then answer this question...would you be happy for your kids to swim in lead contaminated water or eat foods from lead contaminated soil?...

...I know I'm 'raising the bar' there a little as where talking about a risk to humans, but what is bad for us is also bad for most flora and fauna too.

Sim G wrote:Conservationist - I'll burn this tree for fuel today, but plant that tree so I have fuel in a few years. I'll shoot and eat this animal, at this time of year, to protect breeding and strengthen gene pool, so I'm able to shoot and eat it's off spring in years to come.

Ecologist - it's all man's fault! Trees have souls, only eat nut kernels because fruit have feelings! Wear grass and never turn a light on!!!

It would be interesting to see how much wild life is damaged by lead, particularly after the surface has oxidised, compared to how many wild birds wind turbines have killed....

Sim

Being an Ecologist is a profession - They need to be qualified, and their personal opinions should not interfere with their work...other than to inspire them to work hard.

Conservationists can be professional or voluntary.

Being an 'Environmentalist' just means you have an interest in the environment.

When I read your posts on other matters you seem well informed, so I'm having difficulty believing you're not just on the wind-up...

Dougan wrote:- I think Sim said that oxidisation stopped it being a problem earlier, but it's the opposite; in that pure lead isn't too bad but the compounds formed by oxidisation are.

Why do I keep finding the same statement in a multitude of research...

Lead forms a thin surface layer of oxide in air, which slowly changes to a basic carbonate. Hard water forms a similar coating on lead, which protects the water from further contamination with soluble lead compounds.

Dougan wrote: Being an Ecologist is a profession - They need to be qualified, and their personal opinions should not interfere with their work...other than to inspire them to work

So no ecologist opinion here, then....?

http://www.theecologist.org

CA "working tirelessly" on the lead shot issue

The future of lead ammunition is one of the biggest issues to face shooting in the past few decades, but one which can easily pass you by if the detail of scientific research and Westminster and EU political process turn you off. The Countryside Alliance is involved in the debate at every level and is working tirelessly on behalf of our members to make sure that the whole shooting community get their say on the use of lead ammunition and those that would like to see it banned cannot rely on false statements and scare stories.

The Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) has now been considering evidence for over five years and concerns have been growing about the process for some time. Correspondence published on the Defra website as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request has brought those concerns to a head and seems to confirm that the process has completely broken down. LAG was set up with representatives of a range of interest groups to consider the issues and to produce a report on risk and mitigation as a group, but the published correspondence suggests the Chairman is now working towards his own conclusions regardless of the views of many group members. This is far too important an issue to be decided on the basis of a contentious report and there is no doubt that any report containing the conclusion that lead based ammunition should be phased out would be exactly that, as Defra itself suggests in the FoI correspondence. The case for a complete ban is further weakened by recent developments on the continent where the Norwegian parliament has voted to overturn a ban on lead ammunition outside wetlands and the EU has halted moves to restrict all lead products.

The relevant science being considered by LAG has all been published on its website and having discussed this with experts we are clear that it does not meet the standard required to justify further restrictions on lead shot, let alone a complete ban. However those who have been campaigning for a ban on lead shot, and leaked Wildlife and Wetland Trust documents have revealed exactly how extensive that campaign is, were set on their conclusions before LAG was even formed as, it now seems, was its Chairman. Our Executive Chairman, Barney White-Spunner, sits on LAG as the representative of the shooting community. LAG’s considerations are confidential, but you can be certain that he, and I am sure others, will demand proper scientific justification for any conclusions LAG comes to.

What a shame we never had "scientific justification" for the ban on semi-auto and handguns". Like the 88 and 97s, I fear this will just get steam-rollered through because "feelings".

Sim G wrote:

Dougan wrote:- I think Sim said that oxidisation stopped it being a problem earlier, but it's the opposite; in that pure lead isn't too bad but the compounds formed by oxidisation are.

Why do I keep finding the same statement in a multitude of research...

Lead forms a thin surface layer of oxide in air, which slowly changes to a basic carbonate. Hard water forms a similar coating on lead, which protects the water from further contamination with soluble lead compounds.

Have a read of this: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/acclpp/Sup ... rdison.pdf

It's one of the better papers describing the compounds formed from lead, and how the effects of 'weathering' and 'mixing' contribute...

...anyway you can deny the chemistry all you like (as a layman), but it's proven (by scientists).

gunsmoke wrote:CA "working tirelessly" on the lead shot issue

The future of lead ammunition is one of the biggest issues to face shooting in the past few decades, but one which can easily pass you by if the detail of scientific research and Westminster and EU political process turn you off. The Countryside Alliance is involved in the debate at every level and is working tirelessly on behalf of our members to make sure that the whole shooting community get their say on the use of lead ammunition and those that would like to see it banned cannot rely on false statements and scare stories.

The Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) has now been considering evidence for over five years and concerns have been growing about the process for some time. Correspondence published on the Defra website as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request has brought those concerns to a head and seems to confirm that the process has completely broken down. LAG was set up with representatives of a range of interest groups to consider the issues and to produce a report on risk and mitigation as a group, but the published correspondence suggests the Chairman is now working towards his own conclusions regardless of the views of many group members. This is far too important an issue to be decided on the basis of a contentious report and there is no doubt that any report containing the conclusion that lead based ammunition should be phased out would be exactly that, as Defra itself suggests in the FoI correspondence. The case for a complete ban is further weakened by recent developments on the continent where the Norwegian parliament has voted to overturn a ban on lead ammunition outside wetlands and the EU has halted moves to restrict all lead products.

The relevant science being considered by LAG has all been published on its website and having discussed this with experts we are clear that it does not meet the standard required to justify further restrictions on lead shot, let alone a complete ban. However those who have been campaigning for a ban on lead shot, and leaked Wildlife and Wetland Trust documents have revealed exactly how extensive that campaign is, were set on their conclusions before LAG was even formed as, it now seems, was its Chairman. Our Executive Chairman, Barney White-Spunner, sits on LAG as the representative of the shooting community. LAG’s considerations are confidential, but you can be certain that he, and I am sure others, will demand proper scientific justification for any conclusions LAG comes to.

That's interesting.

There are clearly those with vested interests on both sides of the issue, and I'm sure each will make their argument in a totally biased fashion (personally I'd like to see some wetlands given more protection), but knowing a little about how Governments and Local Authorities deal with contaminated land issues I'm certain that shooters rights will be given due consideration...don't forget that shooting is a valuable industry and a leisure activity for thousands.

Sim G wrote:

Dougan wrote: Being an Ecologist is a profession - They need to be qualified, and their personal opinions should not interfere with their work...other than to inspire them to work

So no ecologist opinion here, then....?

http://www.theecologist.org

It's a publication...just like the Economist for economists...

...bored with this part of the discussion now...