Lead and gamekeepers and their families

Mark 9 Comments

By Lord Mountbatten (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
By Lord Mountbatten (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Another quote from the findings of the Lead Ammunition Group:

 

Lead shot and bullet fragments can be present in game meat at levels sufficient to cause significant health risks to children and adult consumers, depending on the amount of game they consume.

Almost certainly some 10,000 children are growing up in households where they could regularly be eating sufficient game shot with lead ammunition to cause them neurodevelopmental harm and other health impairments. Tens of thousands of adults are also exposed to additional lead by eating game as part of their normal diet, and this could cause a range of low level but harmful health effects, of which they will not be aware.

So which children would they be, I wonder?  Gamekeepers’ families must be at particular risk.

Why have the GWCT, Moorland Association, BASC, Countryside Alliance and CLA failed to spread the word on the health dangers of lead in game meat to their own employees?

Why have the shooting magazines been opposing any change in use of lead ammunition when they should have known of these health risks?

It isn’t that they didn’t know, so could it be that they didn’t care?

 

 

[registration_form]

9 Replies to “Lead and gamekeepers and their families”

  1. As someone once said of a person I know; “He never lets mere facts get in the way of his opinions”.

  2. Many years ago, working on an RSPB reserve there were eel nets in a lagoon to see if there were any eels! The pool was full of pike and a Mallard which had dived down around 6 feet! This bird was taken to eat along with a large Pike of around 10lbs. When I cleaned the mallard the gizzard was full of lead pellets as the reserve was shot over. No wonder the bird could dive down 6 feet it was using the lead as ballast!

  4. I look forward to seeing in the full report the statistics on the occupations of the parents whose children have been affected by lead poisoning.

  5. All joking aside, I seriously wonder whether a lot of the irrational support for destructive things like driven grouse shooting is due to brains fried by lead. Did you know that phasing out lead in petrol is tentatively linked to a worldwide drop in crime? There was also a report a few years ago that giving prisoners vitamin pills led to a reduction in trouble in prisons. So perhaps lots of our problems are due to poor nutrition.

  6. On several occasions I have written about the historic and continuing use of lead cartridges used to shoot game on moorland water catchments managed by United Utilities in the Forest of Bowland. This trend has to my knowledge been taking place for well over 100 years, resulting in tons of lead shot being deposited on moorland in Bowland used to provide drinking water for many parts of Lancashire.

    As far as I am aware United Utilities is the only water utility company in England that permits game to be shot by cartridges filled with lead on their moorland water catchments. Does anyone really know if the cumulative effects of this highly toxic material has had any adverse impact on the company consumers who drink the water collected from moorlands in Bowland?

    1. Does anyone really know … ?

      If they do, the information is not easy to find. The solubility of lead salts is increased in acidic soils and with increased dissolved organic carbon. Sounds like peat moorland conditions to me so there is reason to expect elevated lead levels in drainage from moorland where shooting occurs. Or there are mine tailings etc.

      Seek and you will find. Don’t seek, no findings. Simples!

  7. Mark, This article titled ‘The Health Effects of Low Level Exposure to Lead’ was published in 2010 by Raptor Politics. Many of your followers will I am sure find the conclusions and implications most interesting.

    For researchers who operate at the intersection of basic biology and toxicology, following the data where they take you—as any good scientist would—carries the risk that you will be publicly attacked as a crank, charged with scientific misconduct, or removed from a government scientific review panel. Such a fate may seem unthinkable to those involved in primary research, but it has increasingly become the norm for toxicologists and environmental investigators. If you find evidence that a compound (lead) is worth billions of dollars to its manufacturer poses a public health risk, you will almost certainly find yourself in the middle of a contentious battle that has little to do with scientific truth.

    A Battle-Tested Veteran in the Fight for Scientific Integrity

    Herbert Needleman is no stranger to the smear tactics of industry. Needleman, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, began to document the health effects of low lead exposure in the early 1970s. His groundbreaking work—which industry fought tooth and nail—clearly demonstrated lead’s toxic effects on children, providing critical evidence for regulations to eliminate lead from gasoline and interior paints, and to lower the blood lead standard for children.

    Concerned that blood lead levels in an older child would not reflect early exposures, Needleman developed a method to evaluate discarded baby teeth (both teeth and bone accumulate lead) for a more accurate history of past lead exposure. He found that inner-city children had higher lead levels than children living in the suburbs, even though none of the children showed signs of lead poisoning. When Needleman presented his findings at a 1972 meeting of lead researchers, he was surprised by the venomous nature of attacks by industry scientists leveled at any researcher who dared present evidence that lead could cause harm at low doses. Needleman continued his work and found that children with elevated tooth lead levels scored lower on a suite of cognitive tests measuring IQ, speech, and language skills. He published his results in a 1979 landmark study showing that early childhood exposure to low levels of lead could compromise a child’s intellectual performance and behavior, again, without evidence of lead poisoning.

    Six months later, Needleman received a call from a representative at the International Lead Zinc Research Organization, a nonprofit trade organization that conducts research on behalf of the lead and zinc industry, asking for his data. He declined. The attacks began soon after, starting with a Pediatrics paper criticizing Needleman’s 1979 study, followed by charges that the work was flawed in testimony before the EPA. After reviewing the charges and original work, the EPA confirmed Needleman’s findings. Then, in 1991, two psychologists who provided expert testimony on behalf of the tetraethyl lead industry accused Needleman of scientific misconduct. One of the psychologists, Claire Ernhart, had written the critical Pediatrics paper and testified against his study before the EPA. The attorney who filed the complaint with the NIH Office of Research Integrity worked for a firm with links to the Ethyl Corporation of America, the major manufacturer of tetraethyl lead. The University of Pittsburgh Medical School began a preliminary investigation of the charges, but denied Needleman’s request for open hearings. Needleman sought the support of the faculty assembly, which unanimously voted for open hearings, filed a complaint in federal court, and had the support of 400 independent scientists calling on the chancellor to open the hearings. The university acceded. After a 2-day hearing, and months of deliberation, the committee released a unanimous decision: there was no evidence of scientific misconduct. Thanks to Needleman’s pioneering efforts to reduce the hazards of lead, average blood lead levels of children in the United States dropped an estimated 78% from 1976 to 1991 (http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t960501b.html). Whether other defenders of public health will be spared a similar path may ultimately depend on stronger laws to safeguard scientific integrity—and public health—from the undue influence of industry.

    Related Topics:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1007757607468

    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/PRESS/condor-lead-11-30-2006.html

    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/SPECIES/condor/index.html

    http://www.lead.org.au/lanv1n2/lanv1n2-8.html

Comments are closed.