OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:10 pm

"The Bullet in Your Backstrap" is the title of an article in the November 2008 issue of "Field & Stream" Magazine.

The article talks of the effect of lead that is found in foods on humans, specifically, lead and lead fragments from ammunition found in game taken by hunters.

It speaks of a study done by "William Cornatzer" on packaged ground beef in various food banks that showed lead sprinkled throughout the meat. This is the study that led to the lead ban in CA.

In North Dakota, the North Dakota Health Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have started taking voluntary blood samples from hunters and non-hunters to see if there are traces of lead in their blood streams and if so, if there is more lead in the hunters blood samples than in the non-hunters blood samples.

The article is very interesting and shows/speaks of the many studies being conducted country-wide on leads effects on food.

Bullard4075 · Post by **Bullard4075** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:32 pm

If we learn that this is a genuine health concern .... yes, lets run it down.

But I suspect it is just another thing to beat us over the head with.

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:40 pm

How will they know where the lead came from. Just because a hunter has lead in his blood stream doesn't mean it was from venison, or game of some sort. He might be a reloader, or bullet caster, and not wash after handling lead. Sounds like anyone who was willing to be tested would be used as a pawn for those trying to ban lead.

Mich Hunter · Post by **Mich Hunter** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

The problem with that is there are more ways than one to test high for lead in your blood. They always want to blame it on bullets, but what about lead paint, dust and lead in water.

They are lacking in proof on where the lead is coming from.

RSY · Post by **RSY** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:20 pm

The problem in situations like this, as we all know, is that our side has to prove a negative, i.e. show the powers-that-be that the lead poisoning did NOT come from bullets. Proving a negative is always extremely difficult and expensive, if not impossible.

Scott

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:56 pm

There is no common sense or intelligence behind this. It's nothing but an attempt to scare everyone away from lead bullets and hunting in general. If the anti's scare enough people away from hunting there will be less people to oppose them.

There is no danger from lead bullets in game animals. Never has been. For crying out loud, how many generations of people world wide hunted with lead balls from muzzle loaders and then early cartridge arms before jacketed and all copper bullets came about?

This is just another backdoor gun control attempt.

Joe

44LVR · Post by **44LVR** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:09 pm

This is 100% bullcrap. A bullet doesn't have time to enter the animal, destroy part of it then have the partially destroyed vessels and arteries pick up lead fragments and disperse them throughout the animal in the seconds before its death.

ONE HUDRED PERCENT HORSECRAP.

44

Dastook · Post by **Dastook** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:25 am

The study you are mentioning was addressed by the NRA in American Hunter a couple months ago. It was done by an anti gun/hunting Dr. The study was redone by the University of South Dakota (I think, I'm going by memory here) and was found to be bogus. That does not stop these people as we all know. They don't look at any fact or logic when they have an agenda.

Mokwaw · Post by **Mokwaw** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:46 am

A couple of years ago, here where I work, a large fuel tank had been cleaned and repaired. It was then filled with water from the city water system from a fire hydrant for testing for leaks. After the test was completed the water was tested to see if it could be let out into a ditch that runs directly to a nearby river. The EPA tested it said there was too much lead in it and would have to be charcoal filterd before dumping. The water source (city system) was checked for lead content and found to be the same as was in the tank. It was deemed within tolerance for human consumption, BUT still could not be dumped in the ditch without filtering. It is okay to poison the people, but not the fish...????

piller · Post by **piller** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:57 pm

I agree, there are too many sources of lead for the bullet to be the culprit. What next, is a study going to say that gun oil causes cancer? Any study can be designed to give whatever results the researcher wants if he lacks the ethics to be objective and throws out any gathered data which do not agree with his intended result.

Dewight · Post by **Dewight** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:47 pm

I believe Cole Younger lived 30-40 years with 14 bullets in hus body afer the Northfield, MN. raid.

Travis Morgan · Post by **Travis Morgan** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:54 am

Yah, wtf ? How many WWI vets lives for DECADES with several lead bullets in him?

gunslinger598 · Post by **gunslinger598** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:23 am

A friend of mine has had a bullet in his torso for just over 40 years. If he croaked tomorrow I suspect it would be from living a full life.

OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"

Re: OT: "The Bullet in Your Backstrap"