Lead shot-gate Part 2:
By Ian Summerell
I posted my 1st article on lead shot in Countryman’s Weekly June 23, onto face book and on my blog firstname.lastname@example.org, I have had some very interesting replies. All have been very supportive of the idea that the science around the lead ban has been misleading.
The science for the alternatives to lead, so-called non-toxic shot and ammunition is even more misleading. If the alternatives are being called non-toxic it implies that lead is toxic. Is Lead Toxic?
How toxic is non-toxic shot and ammunition?
We have been told that we should be using non-toxic ammunition not only for wildfowling but other forms of shooting as well. This also includes rifle ammunition. As I reported in the 1st article the plan to stop us using lead comes right from the top of world government the UN.
Their logic is that lead is toxic and they would like to see the amount of lead in the environment reduced. So our use of lead in all forms has to be reduced. I can understand removing lead from paint and replacing lead water pipes. I can’t see the need to stop us using lead for shooting because of possible misleading and unreliable science.
They can’t tell the difference between the normal lead levels and the abnormal lead level as high lighted in Roger Quy report April 2010 he states in his conclusions “the distinction between background lead levels and abnormal lead levels is not well-defined,”
Have you read any where in the British shooting press that the so-called non-toxic alternatives to lead may be a health risk.
I sat down on the PC for one day and on the Internet I found a web site called Wired.com with one page called ‘Danger Room’ by David Hambling. He reports: “ In the 1990’s the U.S. Army introduced a new set of “green” training ammunition designed to be less toxic and more environmentally friendly than the lead-filled rounds used before. But these new bullets may have left firing ranges contaminated and exposed soldiers to a new health hazard. … The Army has stopped production of the bullets.”
In the same article it was reported that the Massachusetts Governor issued a “cause and desist” order to stop the tungsten based ammunition from being used on the MassachusettsMilitary Reservation.
The ammunition they are talking about is the so-called non-toxic Tungsten based bullets. They could be a greater threat to animal and human health than lead. It is believed by scientists that tungsten alloy fragments can cause tumors.
If they are going to be alarmist about us using lead, we should be more alarmed that the alternatives are toxic and they are not telling us about it.
To back this up, I have found another report.
I’m a member of a chat room based in the United States where a report was posted regarding a story on the Cape Cod Online website, the article called ‘unfriendly fire’ by Amanda Lehmert, reports that on Camp Edwards home to the National Guard they have stop using Tungsten ammunition after health risks.
“the tungsten bullets may not be as green as everyone had hoped. And federal health officials are studying whether exposure to large amounts of tungsten causes childhood leukemia.” Amanda Lehmert writes.
OK that’s two reports, I have also found a third.
The Norwegian Army found health problems with the so-called ‘GREEN’ ammunition as well. The Norwegian Defense research Establishment (NDRE) was asked by the Defense Logistic Organization to look into the health risks of the new army rifle and ammunition.
The Norwegian government kindly let me have an English summary of their report, which found that: “Ammunition contains compounds that can pose a health risk. Hence, it is important that use of ammunition is carried out in a manner that prevents personnel from being exposed at unacceptable levels. After practicing with the assault rifle HK416, recently obtained by the Norwegian Defence, soldiers have from time to time complained about health problems such as coughing, fever, chills, headache, nausea, malign, and sore throat.”
So in one day on the web I have found three different accounts of health risks using the new tungsten so-called ‘Green’ ammunition. If there is this level of concern over tungsten in other parts of the world, why are we even looking at removing lead ammunition for use in this country?
Is lead safer to use in the long term than the so-called green non-toxic alternatives, [I’ll re-type that] ‘that the TOXIC alternatives?
I have been following the debate and web chatter surrounding the environmental scientists and the way they have been funded to produce research that is said to prove that CO2 is the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). After the Climategate emails were posted on the web and we could all see how the once trusted scientists manipulated and distorted the figures and used their ‘hocus pokus’ science to prove AGW was man made. We now know it was all one big scam.
With global warming, Oh, they now call it ‘climate change’, as if that is going to make a difference, its still just one big scam, it is reported that the environmental scientists are being funded by vested interests, governments and alterative energy companies.
One of the co-authors of a scientific paper on tungsten shot published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases in 2001, worked for the Federal Cartridge Company. I’m told by US shooters that the paper was produced to prove that it was safe to use tungsten shot. The trial only lasted 150 days and that they do not know the long term affects of using tungsten shot.
How can we be sure that scientists paid for by governments, and business that have vested interests, are not also manipulating the research into lead and the alternatives?
By using the toxic alternatives to lead for shooting, what problems are we setting ourselves up for in the future?
After climategate how can we ever trust the scientists?