Yeah Brent, you know the science. You will relentlessly repeat one side of it that has been effectively refuted. You still want us to believe that people with an anti-lead agenda would never give you incorrect or false data. Even after I took the time to give you two examples of bad science, you will maintain that lead ammunition is a serious problem that should be eliminated, and we are unwise to fight it. One of those examples, Climate-gate, was a world-wide scandal that pretty much silenced the Global Warming alarmists for several years.
If you still do not think that data get fudged every day in order to achieve a desired result, then it's obvious that you haven't spent much time in labs. Remember all of the excitement over Cold Fusion... until those wondrous experiments could not be replicated?
Now you are dragging this into the mud and accusing me of preaching falsehoods. Where did I lie Brent? You never told us where I ever once claimed that lead is not a toxin. Neither did craigd. I don't know craigd from Adam, but craigd has obviously spent quite a bit of time researching this matter and very effectively slicing and dicing many of Larry's assertions. I'll bet that he knows what crops and gizzards are, and has more right and reason to debate this issue than you... whatever your mysterious expert card is.
I don't care how many hundreds of pounds of lead bullets you shoot a year. I doubt if your lead bullets are poisoning any birds or animals unless you consider a bullet hole in a squirrel's head as poisoning. But you seem to think otherwise, so I can't imagine why you continue while you support the anti-lead ammunition agenda.
