Larry, I told you in the locked Condor thread that there is lots of contrarian science that effectively disputes much of the junk science that was used to advance the 1991 Federal Lead Shot Ban, and subsequent lead ammo bans in California and elsewhere.
I'm just giving you a dose of your own medicine, and it appears you don't like it.
I've asked for it before. You've come up empty before. If you have it, start another thread on the subject. And post the links. Simple as that.
No Larry, it's not that simple. You don't run me, and I don't take orders from you. I told you in the Condor thread that you are obviously not yet ready to digest studies that debunk the junk science on lead ammunition that you cling to. You need to grow up and get past your reading comprehension problems first.
What did you think you were going to accomplish with your insulting PM to me yesterday, along with wild-assed explanations that bore no resemblance to what you stated in that Condor thread? And why did you send a second PM to me after I told you, "Go try to intimidate someone else. It won't fly with me. I'd prefer to have this discussion in the open forum where everyone can see what you are doing."?
In the Condor thread you were obviously referring to the original North Dakota study on lead in venison. You mentioned it several times, and in your post #434842 on 2/1/16, you clearly stated:
"Lead in any meat is going to cause "food safety questions" . . . mostly by those who don't eat it. And by those in the health industry. The ND study on lead levels in humans came about as a result of a study in which 53 out or 95 packets of ground venison donated to food pantries contained lead fragments. As a result the ND Dept of Health temporarily halted distribution of venison to food pantries. Like I said, guys who hunt with lead bullets have an issue to deal with. Not throwing them under the bus; simply allowing those who've done more research in that area than I have and who know more about it to present their views in case someone proposes a lead bullet ban."That figure of lead in 53 out of 95 packets of ground venison is right out of the original study that was done by a dermatologist who just happened to also be a falconer and a member of the anti-lead ammunition Peregrine Fund. Here's the flawed "research" for you to try to comprehend... all 31 pages.
North Dakota Study on Lead in Ground Venison It was the work of the dermatologist/falcon lover Dr. William Cornatzer, who claimed to find lead in 53 out of 95 packets of ground venison, that was discredited by numerous State Game agencies and researchers, including those from Iowa. Actually, Dr. Cornatzer was on the Board of Directors of the anti-lead Peregrine Fund, and had been active in anti-lead ammunition initiatives in California. But the methodology of the CDC's 2008 follow-up study was flawed as well. And why would I care about what you may or may not have written in your magazine articles... which I never read? I was responding to what you posted right here on this BBS. Of course, between your arrogance and crude insults, there was more back-pedaling and excuse making similar your earlier reply to my quoting of your "Lead is toxic. Toxic = Bad" statement. That quote was from your post #434181 on 1/26/16 where anyone could see that your statement wasn't worded to convey that those were the sentiments of the anti-lead public, and not yourself. If that wasn't what you meant to convey, you shouldn't have written it. By then, you had also made numerous posts that did in fact throw deer hunters under the bus and had found fault with hunting with lead in just about everything except upland game hunting. Of course, several guys besides me had noticed the same thing.
I doubt if you'll be able to find any flawed methodology in that North Dakota study, because you'll be too busy concentrating on some way to avoid admitting that you aren't as smart as you think you are.
