×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NRA Launches Pro-Lead Website

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the which-conceit-do-you-prefer? dept.

Stats 780

ideonexus writes "The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations who argue that lead bullets are poisoning the environment and tainting game meat with a known neurotoxin. The rise and fall of lead levels from gasoline and lead-based paint are strongly correlated to the rise and fall of crime rates in communities around the world."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

780 comments

The Romans found out about lead (4, Informative)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 9 months ago | (#44488221)

The Romans found out about lead and its toxic effects. There's no point in using it where it isn't necessary.

Re:The Romans found out about lead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488425)

What do you suggest be used as a substitute? There are legitimate reasons that lead is used in bullets.

Re:The Romans found out about lead (3, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 9 months ago | (#44488511)

Mercury. It's denser than lead, and can pass through many materials very easily, including metals [youtube.com] .

Re:The Romans found out about lead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488703)

"It's denser than lead, and can pass through many materials very easily, including metals"

Which is exactly why ranges wouldn't want people to use it. Hardened steel ammo is banned many places for much the same reason. Plus, mercury can be poisonous too...

Re:The Romans found out about lead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488605)

Bullshit, steel and bismuth work fine.

Re:The Romans found out about lead (5, Funny)

laejoh (648921) | about 9 months ago | (#44488531)

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, public health, and their findings about lead and its toxic effects, what have the Romans ever done for us?

defense strategy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488575)

Officer, at no time did I intend to lead-poison him when I shot him.

Re:The Romans found out about lead (3, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 9 months ago | (#44488643)

Yes, and you don'e want to eat it, or breath it in.
But, that does not mean that there is anything necessarily wrong with a large piece of meat coming in contact with lead for a short while.

Hell, the medical community puts mercury into injections, and expect you to inject it directly into your blood steam.

Re:The Romans found out about lead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488677)

What about fishing weights, tire balancing and even keyboards have them so they don't slide around when you type.
It's used because it is cheap and not easily ingested...unlike in paint chips or in gasoline exhaust fumes.

As for unleaded bullets? Makes sense for hunting/food consumption. But for game hunting, target practice or killing Taliban...not very practical.

Decontamination (2, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about 9 months ago | (#44488231)

After having been to some rifle ranges, one question that never seems to be answered is: after several decades of hard shooting, who gets the unenviable (and expensive!) job of decontaminating what is essentially a toxic waste dump?

NRA doing what right-wingers do best? -- liability-dumping and socializing losses?

Re:Decontamination (5, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 9 months ago | (#44488293)

Actually many range mine the lead out of their backstops for resale back to either home bullet casters or commercial casting outfits.

Re:Decontamination (5, Informative)

DCFusor (1763438) | about 9 months ago | (#44488347)

I own a small range, and that's precisely what we do - we gather the shot bullets and remelt them for casting (helps if you designed the backstops to make that easier). Saves a ton of money. Ditto, we collect all the brass from dumb shooters who leave it there - even more savings. The green aspect rides along for free - we just want our expensive metals back, it's like a super high grade mine with a heck of a lot less mess made to the envirornment in the process - at very low cost to us. I see a comment about Barnes below - no, we get them too. They float on the melt (along with the cupro-nickel normal jackets), and we sell the copper back to the refiners.

Re:Decontamination (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#44488389)

Glad to hear my bullets are not hurting this.
I was a bit concerned the copper might be hard to get out.

Re:Decontamination (-1, Flamebait)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 9 months ago | (#44488597)

It's funny, when people complain about electric vehicle batteries and supposed the looming environmental disaster if we mass produce them, the 'the batteries are recycled' argument gets shot down. Now it appears to be a valid argument?

And while I understand not all pro-gun people are rabid GOP deniers of [insert topic they don't like], it's a pretty good correlation.

I agree that recycling described above makes good sense...I do find the hypocrisy of the rabid's ironic but sad.

Re:Decontamination (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488473)

The majority of the ammunition that is fired at ranges is not pure lead. Traditional target and military ammunition is referred to Full Metal Jacket. Where the lead bullet has been coated or bonded with a Copper outer shell that lessens the degree of lead fouling and deposits on the barrel of the weapon.

This jacket can either be a coating of the front and sides and leave the rear unjacketed, or can fully encapsulate the lead projectile. either way the amount of lead surface area that could possibly leech into the soil is rather small.

This is literally a non issue environmentally.

Re:Decontamination (2)

Nadaka (224565) | about 9 months ago | (#44488553)

Jacketed Ammunition only nominally holds a round together. Particularly if you are talking about a higher velocity rifle round, those can often squirt a jet of lead out of the casing during ballistic deceleration.

Re:Decontamination (3, Informative)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#44488657)

A large part of the ammunition fired at ranges is low velocity lead. Prevents lots of barrel wear. Also less painful. Shoot 100 rounds of jacketed .357 magnum and your hand/wrist is hurting. Shoot 100 rounds of lead .38 special and your good to shoot another 100. You'll also save a few bucks in the process.

It's still a non-issue environmentally.

Re:Decontamination (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488313)

I want to literally see public shooting ranges in these people's backyards. See how they feel about lead then.

Re:Decontamination (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488321)

How dare you consider the long term consequences to human actions.

What are you? some sort of democrat?

Re:Decontamination (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488363)

Downrange lead is collected and sold.
  Pretty simple process, very little decontamination takes place.. dude with a big broom comes out, sweeps it into a bucket, washes hands.
lead gets sold back to range members who recast it into new bullets.. oh snap! right wing recycling!

Re:Decontamination (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488365)

They shovel up the lead and sell it for recycling, it is not a toxic waste dump essentially or otherwise. Metallic lead is rather inert otherwise every roll of solder would have to come with a hazmat suit.

Re:Decontamination (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#44488479)

You do realize that leaded solder is getting harder to come by, and is entirely gone from use in plumbing, right?

Re:Decontamination (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488541)

I think the danger would come in the form of dust created from impact, which a properly designed range would mitigate, but over time it still contaminates the site, since you can't reasonably get every single bit without a lot of processing and the danger levels of dust are remarkably low. Generally though the sites are fairly safe as long as they are kept dust free.

Re:Decontamination (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488443)

Actually soil leeching isn't that bad as I understand. Lead chunks form an oxidized layer that encapsulates well and prevent it from leeching. Aerosolizing
it in gas fumes is obviously going to have a different impact. Most shooting ranges I know of will have a company come and sift their berms for not much money as long as they get to keep the scrap lead. As far as game contamination goes most hunting bullets already don't contain lead if they are frangible, and they often boast their % retained weight if they expand (fragments aren't scattered from the slug). Bird shot is about they only thing worrying to health as far as lead goes (lots of tiny fragments you might accidentally eat) and that is pretty hard to come by. It is virtually all lead free now.

Re:Decontamination (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 9 months ago | (#44488503)

who gets the unenviable (and expensive!) job of decontaminating what is essentially a toxic waste dump?

Lead recovery is a common service offered [leadrecoverysystems.com] essentially everywhere there are outdoor ranges and berms. Bullets don't penetrate far into berms so it's a relatively easy job. Depending on how much lead is recovered it can actually be profitable, as opposed to "expensive." Indoor ranges contract with recyclers and cash in.

Re:Decontamination (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 9 months ago | (#44488515)

I assume that every month, week, or year they probably go around with giant magnets and get a pretty penny from metal dealers.

Lead is not radioactive. You do not want to lick it, but a few shells laying around are not really a "contamination"

Re:Decontamination (0)

gstoddart (321705) | about 9 months ago | (#44488599)

Lead is not radioactive. You do not want to lick it, but a few shells laying around are not really a "contamination"

Unless there's enough that it starts to seep into your groundwater or fish stocks, or the animals you're hunting.

At which point it certainly is a contamination.

Re:Decontamination (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about 9 months ago | (#44488647)

Lead isn't magnetic, so you wouldn't accomplish much with a giant magnet. You'll be lucky to get 50 cents a pound from scrap dealers, so recovery isn't highly profitable.

Re:Decontamination (4, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | about 9 months ago | (#44488519)

After having been to some rifle ranges, one question that never seems to be answered is: after several decades of hard shooting, who gets the unenviable (and expensive!) job of decontaminating what is essentially a toxic waste dump?

NRA doing what right-wingers do best? -- liability-dumping and socializing losses?

There's some controversy about that at a popular San Francisco shooting range:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/24/sf-faces-10-million-toxic-waste-problem-at-lake-merced-gun-club/ [cbslocal.com]

The city is trying to shut down the gun club (which would leave the city on the hook for the cleanup). The gun club (which has already switched away from lead shot) wants to stay around and pay for the cleanup themselves, though maybe not on the terms the city wants.

Other lakes in SF that did not have shooting ranges are also contaminated with lead [sfgate.com] (mainly from street runoff when lead gas was legal), so it's not clear how much contamination at the gun club's lake is due to the gun club itself and how much from other sources, but the city is apparently blaming the gun club for all of the contamination in their lake.

Re:Decontamination (2)

Dimensio (311070) | about 9 months ago | (#44488687)

I am somewhat surprised that the city is not blaming the gun range for the lead contamination in every body of water in the city.

Barnes bullets must love this (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#44488243)

Barnes Bullets surely is not going to be helping the NRA on this one.

I shoot those in all my rifles. They are really great and apparently I am being eco friendly.

non sequitur (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#44488259)

The rise and fall of lead levels from gasoline and lead-based paint are strongly correlated to the rise and fall of crime rates in communities around the world.

Yes, and??

Gasoline is something you are inhaling some fumes from, and around pretty often.

Lead on bullets, much less so - most people would at most go shooting one day a week, many much less often than that. And the bullets fired are fired into a range, so contamination is very limited compared to widespread use of gas and spillage at every station.

The amusing thing is that the increase of bullets (i.e. people owning guns) has also contributed to drops in crime rates...

Re:non sequitur (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#44488323)

Those bullets just disappear after I shoot them into the berm?

My assumption is the rain will wash them into the ground water.

Re:non sequitur (2, Informative)

Hartree (191324) | about 9 months ago | (#44488535)

Have you ever seen them just dissolve in water?

Of course not. It'd take a heck of a long time. How many lead statues have dissolved in the rain?

For a major leaching from them you need something else in it, like an acid, or the water to be hot and in contact for a long time. In some cases it can be a problem. When you have large amounts perhaps like in a landfill (where you can get localized heating from decay) full of old circuit boards, you might have a problem. Might.

But if lead had just dissolved like you assume, then the Romans (and many others) wouldn't have used it for plumbing as the pipes would have corroded through quickly.

The question is what dose you get absorbed. Just keep in mind the basic rule of toxicology: "Dose makes the toxin."

Re:non sequitur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488587)

no, they will stay in the berm until someone from the range digs the bullets out and sells them to a recycler. The environmental issue that you will have is from the dust from non-jacketed bullets. But the people who really have to be aware of that are Olympic class shooters who go through several thousand rounds a day practicing in indoor ranges.

Re:non sequitur (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488349)

"The amusing thing is that the increase of bullets (i.e. people owning guns) has also contributed to crime rates..."

FTFY. Turn off your computer and go back to polishing your AR-15 and wacking off to that topless picture of Dick Cheney you keep around.

Re:non sequitur (5, Informative)

the gnat (153162) | about 9 months ago | (#44488351)

The amusing thing is that the increase of bullets (i.e. people owning guns) has also contributed to drops in crime rates...

Actually, violent crime in the United States has dropped significantly since the 1980s and early 1990s [wikipedia.org] , but so has gun ownership [nytimes.com] .

Re:non sequitur (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488619)

Reported gun ownership has dropped, that isn't the same as gun ownership.

Re:non sequitur (3, Informative)

EvilSS (557649) | about 9 months ago | (#44488689)

but so has gun ownership [nytimes.com] .

Has it? As a percentage of households, yes. However, you need to account for population growth over the same time period. If you do you'll see the number (not percentage) of households with firearms has stayed fairly steady over the decades.

Re:non sequitur (1)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | about 9 months ago | (#44488603)

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. -- Chris Rock

The rise of lead levels in my ammunition is strongly correlated to the fall of crime rates in my neighborhood. -- Every redneck ever.

Re:non sequitur (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488625)

Perhaps exposure to lead in the bullets is what creates gun nuts in the first place?

The local range paid expenses with salaged lead. (-1, Flamebait)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#44488267)

They would bring out a dozer every couple of years and scrape off the top foot on the skeet range and the front foot for the berm, process it and pay a big chunk of expenses with the money for the lead.

Until the god damn liberals forced it to close. They really are willing to do anything in their power to effectively take our guns. When the time comes, give them the bullets first.

Re:The local range paid expenses with salaged lead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488379)

Turn off your computer and go back to polishing your AR-15 and wacking off to that topless picture of Dick Cheney you keep around.

No one cares about god damned conservatards like you.

Re:The local range paid expenses with salaged lead (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#44488433)

As a god damn liberal, I say STFU. I am more worried about your stupidity leading most Americans being ok with banning guns than anything politicians can manage.

The suggestion to shoot people like you just did is what endangers our right to own firearms. Not my support of civil rights or food for the hungry.

Re:The local range paid expenses with salaged lead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488525)

Seriously, go fuck yourself.

Re:The local range paid expenses with salaged lead (2)

Wookact (2804191) | about 9 months ago | (#44488573)

You realize threatening "Liberals" only goes to bolster their claims that guns will be misused and should be controlled.

Site Down (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488271)

The servers must've had some problems with the lead-free solder joints.

Lead if for DIY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488277)

If you ban lead, then how am I supposed to manufacture my own ammunition?

Re:Lead if for DIY (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#44488333)

Out of copper or brass. You can either cast or turn them.

Re:Lead if for DIY (1, Informative)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#44488463)

No. If they ban lead you make your bullets out of lead.

Rules are made to be broken.

Re:Lead if for DIY (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#44488639)

This is the sort of stupid that leads to people wanting to ban guns. You want to break the law and threaten people, you should not be allowed to own firearms most likely.

If they ban lead you follow the law and work to get it changed. Otherwise you are just arming the gun grabbers.

Re:Lead if for DIY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488667)

Neither are as easy as casting lead bullets.

WTF NRA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488279)

I am a member of the NRA and still cannot wrap my head around why you would want to defend the use of lead ammo. There are numerous alternatives that mimic (and in some cases improve) the performance characteristics of lead ammo.

Re:WTF NRA? (5, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 9 months ago | (#44488371)

Cost. Generally if you remove lead from bullets you see a price increase of nearly an order of magnitude. If you completely remove lead from ammo then you essentially drive the cost of target shooting up to a point where it can only be afforded by the rich.

Hunting wouldn't be much effected - neither would crime, as neither needs a significant volume of ammo, but target shooting would be a thing of the past. Passing laws with such consequences shouldn't be done just because it "might maybe sorta possibly help something somewhere". It needs to have very specific reasons based on scientific study. Not just of the "lead is bad, mmmkay" variety, but actually showing that the lead usage specifically in ammunition is reason for concern. So far, the data just doesn't show any major problem there.

Re:WTF NRA? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#44488461)

I don't think you know what an order of magnitude means. I am not paying $10 a shot for my Barnes bullets.

Target shooting will go on fine, it will just cost a very little bit more.

Re:WTF NRA? (4, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 9 months ago | (#44488585)

$10 per shot? No, but for all my target shooting I shoot handloads. My .30-30 plinking loads I shoot with Missouri Bullet Company 165gr lead slugs. They run about $30 for 250. Thats 12 cents per bullet. Barnes bullets tend to run about $30 per 50 - about 60 cents per bullet. Not quite an order magnitude, but its still 5 times the cost.

Re:WTF NRA? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#44488681)

I only like accurate guns, so the cost difference to me is maybe 2x, nothing like 5x. Sure the cost will go up, but this is an expensive hobby anyway.

Re:WTF NRA? (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 9 months ago | (#44488655)

I was with you right up until you said "the data just doesn't show any major problem." What data have you examined? And need I point out that absence of proof is not proof of absence? For example, data didn't show absestos was harmful until someone started actually collecting data.

Re:WTF NRA? (1)

guises (2423402) | about 9 months ago | (#44488649)

Because that's what the NRA does - everything it can to make sure that nothing ever changes, no matter how ridiculous the claims they make have to become. You remember the bit about arming all teachers and posting armed guards at every elementary school? Or other bullshit [jonathanturley.org] . That's their thing, that's why they exist.

oh motherjoans (1, Insightful)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 9 months ago | (#44488281)

A political blogger on mother joans cites a weak science paper and comes to the solution for solving crime... cleaning up the environment, while ignoring all other factors.

Re:oh motherjoans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488423)

"Jones" - too much lead in your environment.

Lead does not cause crime (-1, Flamebait)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 9 months ago | (#44488283)

Please do pump-up summaries by including pseudoscientific commentary. Lead does not cause crime [google.com] any more than global warming causes piracy. [forbes.com]

Re:Lead does not cause crime (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488617)

Pseudoscience? Lead being a known poison is pseudoscience?
Just... don't even bother replying, get out. I don't even care about your ID, even Einstein was a dick at times.

To flat out deny a very well known fact that has resulted in leads being removed form damn near everything due to very well known and tested examples of it poisoning the absolute hell out of things is childish at best.

Was the summary jumping to conclusions? Sure, you could say that, correlation != causation and all that noise, but it doesn't mean it isn't true either.
It COULD be true, and if it was, even more to remove it.
This will just lead to more tests. (no pun intended, just awful English language as usual) Well, in an ideal world.
Realistically, they will throw shit at each other until one of them gives up. Like an average 4chan post these days. (u mad, he mad, so mad, lel look how mad he is, etc.)
Same reason mercury was removed from damn near everything and limits are set for safe consumption of some fish that grab on to mercury like a sponge.

The fact that it is being shot in to people, possibly shattering a little, and almost certainly having some dusty flakes on the outside as it went through the barrel, yes, yes it should be removed.
But there is also the fact that it is a weapon, and minimizing damage is a pointless waste since it is meant to be damaging in the first place.
Although, there is that rule that most countries follow in that they won't do permanent debilitating damage to people, such as blinding them with lasers, or it be held against them as a war crime. Now, that is a country, not a person. Should it be extended to a person? Should a person be held as a warmonger if they blinded someone with a laser (or in this case, shot them with a lead-covered bullet and possibly lead to mental damage)? I think the law itself should be changed to reflect the person rather than an entity larger than one, personally, as permanently damaging another so far as to rob them of their life previous to the event is a crime higher than most, up their just under violent rape, murder and the other bunch.
Will a bullet result in a mad spiral of doom, depression and crime to a person that was shot?
Will they grow horns and demand humans for lunch or the entire planet be held prisoner in a hell-like dimension?
That is up to science to figure out from here on if this is ever to be resolved.

Re:Lead does not cause crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488671)

Please do complain about pseudoscientific commentary and then "cite" a Google search without a hint of irony or self-awareness.

simple fix (0)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 9 months ago | (#44488289)

just make lead ammunition more expensive than standard ammunition and something else that is also lead-free even more expensive. ordinary people will take either the cheap ammunition or the "high quality" ammunition (naturally what's most expensive) and idiots will buy lead ammunition and poison themselves a little bit at a time.

everyone wins!

Re:simple fix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488457)

Lead ammunition is "standard" ammunition. Everything else is more expensive as is. Lead ammo is used because it's been the most cost effective type of ammunition for several centuries.

Re:simple fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488459)

"Standard" ammunition often has a lead core.

Heavy metal poisening is no joke. Fuck the NRA. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488299)

There are lines and there are fucking lines. The NRA stopped being a gun owner advocate group long ago and is now just a shill/thinktank/scaremonger for political conservative causes.

If you have two braincells to rub together you'll tear up your membership card and tell these dangerous idiots to suck on the business end of their beloved sacred boom sticks.

Re:Heavy metal poisening is no joke. Fuck the NRA. (3, Insightful)

FictionPimp (712802) | about 9 months ago | (#44488369)

I did just that a few years back. I would get nothing but letters spouting FUD about X,Y,Z. They would then of course ask for a donation to stop whatever big scary fear they just imagined.

Some gems:

1) Obama not trying to pass laws to take away our guns in his first term is PROOF he wants to take away our guns. So don't vote for Obama.
2) Obama is working with the UN to take away our guns all over the world.

I was willing to give them my money when I thought they were trying to encourage training, education, and firearm ownership. I also liked that they would be a voice in the process of government for the rights of gun owners. But they have moved beyond that and I can't say their goals align with my own goals. I just want to own my guns, shoot at ranges, and see the encouragement of proper education. I guess that's too much to ask.

Re:Heavy metal poisening is no joke. Fuck the NRA. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#44488537)

You should give your support to 'Gun Owners of America'. The NRA is soft.

Re:Heavy metal poisening is no joke. Fuck the NRA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488465)

Clearly, you are suffering from heavy metal poisoning. Maybe you should stop licking you wall paint!!

Lead is cheap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488315)

We use lead because it spreads out and has stopping power. Non-lead bullets tend to pass through their targets. Would this exempt law enforcement and military?

MO Lead (2)

nicoleb_x (1571029) | about 9 months ago | (#44488317)

I lived in Missouri, MO, for a while and had noticed that the place is full of lead deposits. I think it's pretty common for the ground to contain large deposits of lead without harming the children. You need more than just lead in the ground to have a problem.

Insoluble, most likely; or off aquifer paths (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#44488621)

Thing is, if it's in the ground and stable (i.e. the groundwater isn't contaminated), it probably contains little or no soluble oxides. Note that there are places where the groundwater is tainted by dangerous chemicals which are native. Groundwater isn't some magical source that only gets screwed up by human intervention. It's usually clean thanks to millions of years of water passage which actually does carry away all the soluble compounds, leaving only insoluble ones - hence why it's often considered clean, and is usually free of significant contamination.

In the case of spent ammunition, the lead becomes part of the shallow watershed effluent path. Any soluble lead compounds actually do enter the water stream, as opposed to lead which has been buried for millions of years and is bypassed or has been stripped already.

Bullets but not wheel weights?: (4, Insightful)

Hartree (191324) | about 9 months ago | (#44488329)

Lead when finely divided or in a form easily absorbed (like paint chips that get eaten) or in a place that can get heavily leached is a real problem.

Blocks of lead, like the wheel weights used to balance car tires aren't a big problem.

Re:Bullets but not wheel weights?: (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#44488679)

Except that the NRA isn't defending the lead wheel weights, and they're already outlawed in CA.

Re:Bullets but not wheel weights?: (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#44488699)

Reminds me of the asinine scare about asbestos insulation, where the form (airborn fibers vs. solid bound masses) and exposure times (years) were completely ignored.

Is this correlated or causal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488353)

"The rise and fall of lead levels from gasoline and lead-based paint are strongly correlated to the rise and fall of crime rates in communities around the world."

Based on this, then we can assume that if we get rid of led bullets then all of the hand gun violence in cities will just go away? This might be doubly true in all of those cities where guns have been banned.

Yes, and? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about 9 months ago | (#44488397)

A couple things stand out here.

1) There is no metal suitable for bullets other than lead - unless we want to shoot some other heavy metal. Pick.
2) If you're going to claim higher crime rates are related to lead poisoning, you should also consider that lower crime rates are related to high per capita firearm ownership (and in turn, shooting). There is no association here, this is a strawman argument.

Re:Yes, and? (1, Insightful)

dargaud (518470) | about 9 months ago | (#44488593)

you should also consider that lower crime rates are related to high per capita firearm ownership

Dead wrong. My country has no firearm ownership and crime rates are a tiny fraction of the US. So OBVIOUSLY other factors are at work. Flame on.

Higher per capita gun ownership? Where? (4, Informative)

Bruce66423 (1678196) | about 9 months ago | (#44488607)

In the US maybe, but in the UK and Western Europe gun ownership hasn't shifted and crime has fallen just as much. As a matter of record, the world is NOT the USA, despite the impression that some Americans seem to have (as I found when spending some otherwise very happy times with you....)

Read this wrong O.o (2)

Svenia (3001819) | about 9 months ago | (#44488411)

I have to admit, I read the beginning of the segment - "The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations who argue ... " to mean the NRA made a website that defended the ideal of them being able to use lead ammunition against (as in to shoot) the scientists and environmental organizations that argue with them.

I think I need more coffee today.

Re:Read this wrong O.o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488549)

Its not you, its the submitter. I read it the same way. I could understand using lead bullets against PETA idiots, but many of those scientists don't deserve to be shot.

Well duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488415)

Decrease the levels of lead pollution, and people might become too smart to keep supporting the NRA. It's just self-preservation.

Certain types just need a case of 'lead poisoning' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488435)

"The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations".

Ok, to be fair, I twisted the meaning a bit by cutting the quote a bit short.

Bullet lead is just an excuse. It's a miniscule fraction of the lead use out there.

Extreme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488507)

The National Rifle Association has launched a website defending the use of lead ammunition against scientists and environmental organizations who argue that lead bullets are poisoning the environment and tainting game meat with a known neurotoxin.

I understand sometimes wanting to shoot people you disagree with, but isn't using lead ammunition against scientists going a bit overboard?

A summary of the NRA's argument (1)

harvestsun (2948641) | about 9 months ago | (#44488543)

Since I'm having a somewhat difficult time accessing their website at the moment, allow me to save you the time and summarize their argument.

Thousands of scientists: "Wildlife is dying due to poisoning from lead ammunition being accidentally ingested. Here is the evidence."
NRA: "NUH UH! LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!"

I don't even see why this is something worth fighting for. I guess non-lead ammunition costs a bit more? Come on, suck it up guys.

In other news... (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 9 months ago | (#44488545)

"NSA Launches Pro-Leak Website"

I need to slow down and read the headlines a little more carefully.

Our zeitgeist (1, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 9 months ago | (#44488547)

Here we see the zeitgeist of 2013 in all its ugliness. All one needs to say is "NRA" and it is immediately assumed that they are on the wrong side of the argument, whatever it might be this time. "Against scientists and environmental organizations" as if they were one and the same! But let's remember, all good people think the same, and all good people agree that science always backs up environmentalism. To think otherwise is crimethink.

Let's not even pay attention to the non-sequitur argument of "the rise and fall of lead levels from gasoline and lead-based paint". What the hell?!? That got nuttin' to do wit nuttin'. BUT - and here's the important part - it's against the NRA so therefore it's a valid argument. Start noticing these and you'll see them everywhere. After all, when you're arguing against Satan why does it matter if your arguments are illogical? You're arguing against blackest evil and so who cares? After all, it's not like one day the powers will be decide that you will occupy the hate-place and use the same flawed arguments against you. It could never happen, and in fact never happened in the 20th century.

And seriously...linking to Mother Jones? Puh-leez. It's an extremist website with an agenda, do you seriously think geeks with brains read that crap? This is the same magazine that wept at the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The last, best hope for mankind. No really, go to a university library and read the back issues.

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-- George Orwell

"Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."
-- Mao Tse-Tung

Strawman summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488561)

Yes - lead is bad for you when inhaled or injested.
Yes - it makes sense that reducing inhaled or injested lead might be correlated with good stuff.

Where, however, is the link between lead in the ground or animals and the general population being at risk?

The lead doesn't go anywhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44488565)

Lead vapors hurt people. Lead particulate doesn't hurt anyone unless ingested. Short of farming on the local backstop or swallowing the bullets, I'm not worried about the lead going anywhere.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...