The smartest guy on the Doublegunshop forum writes...
START reading. You haven't seen them because you haven't looked. Now, they due stable isotope analyses to determine lead source.
.
They don't "due" stable isotope analysis. They "do " it.
However, people who know how to spell "do", and use the word correctly, might also be intelligent enough to understand the limitations of stable lead isotope analysis.
There are four stable isotopes of lead. and the ratios of those isotopes in a sample of lead MAY tell you where in the world that sample of lead was mined. That's because the lead ore in different deposits has naturally decayed at slightly different rates, leaving unique ratios of stable isotopes that can indicate to a researcher where it was mined.
Anti-lead activists like the nutty professor love to cling to the false notion that stable isotope analysis can absolutely pinpoint lead shot as the culprit in avian lead poisoning. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are several problems with clinging to stable isotope analysis in the never-ending quest to blame lead shot and lead bullets for lead poisoning. Most important is that lead is one of the most recycled metals in use. The lead in shot or bullets may be virgin lead, or more likely, it will be an alloy or mix of new and used lead from multiple sources and multiple smelters. Before it became ammunition, there is a good chance some or all of that lead was previously used in lead pipes, lead acid battery plates, lead flashing, or dozens of other products. So the ratio of stable isotopes are very unlikely to tell the researcher anything about where it was mined. It's about as useless as doing DNA testing on a single hair found in a busy barbershop, and thinking that will tell you who killed the barber.
The fact that the minute quantity of lead in a blood sample has a certain ratio of isotopes also cannot prove that lead came from shot or bullets either. Lead smelting plants sell lead and lead alloys to many different customers. The minute amounts of lead in any blood sample could come from multiple sources. And the worst sources when it comes to plumbism, or lead poisoning, are not chunks of elemental lead in shot or bullet fragments. The worst sources are lead in chemical solutions or dusts, because lead is much more bio-available in those forms. Lead poisoning is a real thing. But the dangers of it from lead ammo has been greatly exaggerated, while other sources are all but ignored. Many guys I know have had lead exposure from reloading, casting bullets or fishing jigs, etc. The only one who ever suffered lead poisoning was a friend who had repeated exposure to lead dust while working as an electrician in a battery manufacturing plant. He told me most was from breathing lead dust while blowing out electrical panels with compressed air.
The nutty professor is at much more risk of increasing his blood lead levels from exposure to the fumes and dust generated by bullet casting than from handling them during reloading, or even swallowing one. And one or two lead shot in a crop or gizzard absolutely does not indicate that any and all lead in that birds blood came from that shot. The single greatest source of lead in our environment came from decades of burning billions of gallons of gasoline that contained tetraethyl lead. And lead continued to be used in aviation fuel even after it was banned for use in cars and trucks. That lead did not simply disappear. It remains every place it was deposited after precipitation washed it out of the air and left it in soil or water.
In addition, those dots on the x-ray images provided by the Preacher are not proof of either lead or lead poisoning. We have zero proof that they are even lead. They could be steel shot, or bismuth, or tungsten. or little round stones. Evidence like that would never fly in Court. Therein lies the big problem. I have read the literature. A great deal of it. And the more I read, the more skeptical I have become. The vast majority of the so-called "science" is not double blind or peer reviewed. Much of it comes from highly suspect and anti-hunting agenda driven sources, such as the Peregrine Fund. I'm sure Ben Deeble is very happy to have the Preacher dumping links to their bullshit here. I have already mentioned that if you actually read this so-called "science" carefully, you will soon see that they cannot even agree on what constitutes a lethal blood lead level in ducks, or geese, or various raptors. When the liars can't get their obviously fictional stories straight, they cannot expect people with any capacity for thoughtful analysis to believe their crap. But the nutty professor mocks anyone who actually uses their brain and questions bullshit. This is a guy who whines about civility and cries about how much nicer it is on Upland Journal forum, as he belittles the guys here who are fed up with the efforts of the Left to end hunting and shooting as we know it.
The best thing the anti-lead people have going for them is that the majority of people don't understand or are too lazy to study the issue. And they are easily fooled by liars and frauds with a PhD after their names. Dustin is wasting his time repeatedly asking the nutty professor to address some of the disparities and absurd assertions in the so-called "science" which I pointed to earlier. He refused to address those things in prior Threads on the subject in the past, and it isn't going to happen now. We should all understand by now that ignoring or dismissing facts is one of the most valuable tools that the Liberal Left uses.
So please, read the "Science". Read all you can, and pay very close attention to the numbers and data and details. You will soon begin to see that a great deal of what passes for "Science" isn't really science at all. And you will similarly see that many of the people who pontificate on the matter of lead ammo bans are agenda driven petty hypocrites who, as craigd astutely notes, do not practice what they preach, and are not nearly as smart as they want you to believe.
