lead ban in shooting times today.
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:10 am
http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/news/532 ... d_ban.html
Please see my article on the reports that the LAG are looking at. www.ianthegun.blogspot.com
The LAG will not take my report on lead shot as it has not been pear reviewed. I was only looking at the very reports the LAG are looking at. My article for Countrymans Weekly was a commentary on those reports.
The conclusions in the Quy report show that the distinction between background lead levels and abnormal lead levels is not well-defined and obviously buried well within the small +/- measurement tolerances of the measuring equipment used.
Then it says [Quy report] “it seems reasonable to assume” This is assumption, whether reasonable or not, this is not Science. Costly studies and even more costly consequences of those studies, to the Nation and its Citizens, when any assumed benefits obviously can’t even be measured, does not appear to be a sustainable approach to what is now obviously a non-problem.
There is NO hard scientific proof that lead shot is the cause of any lead poisoning of birds, mammals or humans. That is my conclusion of the obvious from reading the scientific papers.
Some of the scientists looking at lead shot research on the LAG and its subgroups have written or been involved with some of the very papers they are reviewing. Is this really an independent review body? Isn’t it looking rather more like climate-gate and the revelation of buddy-gate that so badly corrupted the peer review process?
The Sneddon report could not find any evidence of lead accumulation in earthworms and small mammals as an aside, what could possibly be more sensitive to accumulations from any presence of lead, than an earthworm?. It says in its conclusions “It is concluded that managed game shooting presents a minimal environmental risk in terms of transfer of elements such as Pb, As, and Sb, to soils and their associated biota in both shooting woodlands and shooting pastures.”
Please see my article on the reports that the LAG are looking at. www.ianthegun.blogspot.com
The LAG will not take my report on lead shot as it has not been pear reviewed. I was only looking at the very reports the LAG are looking at. My article for Countrymans Weekly was a commentary on those reports.
The conclusions in the Quy report show that the distinction between background lead levels and abnormal lead levels is not well-defined and obviously buried well within the small +/- measurement tolerances of the measuring equipment used.
Then it says [Quy report] “it seems reasonable to assume” This is assumption, whether reasonable or not, this is not Science. Costly studies and even more costly consequences of those studies, to the Nation and its Citizens, when any assumed benefits obviously can’t even be measured, does not appear to be a sustainable approach to what is now obviously a non-problem.
There is NO hard scientific proof that lead shot is the cause of any lead poisoning of birds, mammals or humans. That is my conclusion of the obvious from reading the scientific papers.
Some of the scientists looking at lead shot research on the LAG and its subgroups have written or been involved with some of the very papers they are reviewing. Is this really an independent review body? Isn’t it looking rather more like climate-gate and the revelation of buddy-gate that so badly corrupted the peer review process?
The Sneddon report could not find any evidence of lead accumulation in earthworms and small mammals as an aside, what could possibly be more sensitive to accumulations from any presence of lead, than an earthworm?. It says in its conclusions “It is concluded that managed game shooting presents a minimal environmental risk in terms of transfer of elements such as Pb, As, and Sb, to soils and their associated biota in both shooting woodlands and shooting pastures.”