tungsten causes leukemia?

[clearwater]

Study showing tungsten causing leukemia in mice.

Some anti lead folks would have us switch to tungsten.

 

[Ol` Joe]

I guess cancer in mice is prefered to lead induced brain damage in vultures and coyotes......... :grin:

 

[dmazur]

I'm no fan of banning lead ammunition, but there are some concerns that are valid, IMO.

If an indoor shooting range can't keep their airborne lead levels down to safe levels, they can either put in a very expensive air handling system or ban shooting unjacketed lead bullets. (I think the plated ones, like Berrys, are also OK.)

If an outdoor shooting range has trouble with lead leaching into groundwater or nearby watersheds, they can just recover lead from the berms periodically, or build a containment sand pit with a roof to eliminate the lead leaching issue.

In other words, make the contamination illegal, not the activity. Then it is possible to devise "engineering controls" to allow the activity to continue.

Back to tungsten. If it's encased in a copper jacket, for proper engagement with the rifling, I doubt if you are going to generate any airborne tungsten particulates on firing. (The same way jacketed lead bullets are OK for indoor range use...no lead particulates.)

No particulates, no cancer.

 

[Richracer1]

Can any one tell me what "for sure" doesn't cause cancer?????

 

[dmazur]

Can any one tell what "for sure" doesn't cause cancer?????

No, I don't think anyone can. That's why we wear respirators at work for everything we have any doubts on, including dust. WISHA doesn't require it, but we joked that 5 years from now some clever scientist will find something new in dust to be afraid of, so we may as well exceed the requirements and play it safe.

I can see that people who have to wear respirators for the entire shift wouldn't like this approach, but generally the workplace has engineered air handlers or glove boxes or something so their exposure is eliminated and they can dispense with respirators.

I believe that the concerns about lead are blown out of proportion. There was a minor scandal recently about some state (Minnesota?) that withdrew game from a "feed the hungry" program out of lead concerns. CDC in Atlanta did a follow-up study to confirm/deny this and found out it was bunk, promoted by a local person with ties to an animal-rights group.

With this kind of nonsense going on, it's no wonder a few of us are skeptical when someone announces the latest "it's bad for you" boogeyman.

 

[DrMike]

I recall a comment made during a seminar on anethesiology. "Water is dangerous is you hold your head under it long enough."

 

[tjen]

I think what is lacking is perspective. We have used lead for hundreds of years for hunting and have had no issues. We have far more lead on the sides of any highway/ road from wheel weights and had no issues.

And is it not the lead vapor and trace amounts of lead in chemical form thats bad? Swallowing a fishing sniker or a lead bullet remaining in your body after a non leathal hit doesn't give you lead posining. My friend was shot with bird shot 20 years ago and the doctors say he won't have any issues with all the lead he is carry, my brother about 28 years ago got lead posising form paiting factors with leadoxide paint. That required a blood transfution. And I for one have swallowed lots of sinker through out my life time and because of where I work get blood work done every year and no lead posining here??????

REAL sience uses perspective and doesn't jump on the catastrufy train with out data over a sufficent amount of time something we lost these days. I have to say I am no enviromentilest they seem wacky to me I am a conservationest thats some thing with a actual track record based in science and enngineering.

 

[DrMike]

I have not read the report referenced in the initial posting of this thread, but I would wonder if there were controls and if a norm had been established. Without a norm, no conclusion can be drawn, only suggestions that have far less weight than controlled studies.

Whilst it is true that there is no evidence of brain damage to shooters over the years, I suppose there are individuals who would argue that if you enjoy such sport as punching holes in paper you must be certifiably insane. But then, that is another thread.

 

[Richracer1]

I have not read the report referenced in the initial posting of this thread, but I would wonder if there were controls and if a norm had been established. Without a norm, no conclusion can be drawn, only suggestions that have far less weight than controlled studies.

Whilst it is true that there is no evidence of brain damage to shooters over the years, I suppose there are individuals who would argue that if you enjoy such sport as punching holes in paper you must be certifiably insane. But then, that is another thread.

They don't need controls or even valid studies to get this crap passed, look at the CA lead ban. We all know their studies and findings are bogus at best.

 

[DrMike]

That is precisely the point. Much, if not most, of modern environmentalism (not legitimate research that has appropriate controls) is a matter of feeling. The spendulus bill passed by congress and the senate is driven more than feelings than by facts.

Those who enjoy the sports of hunting and shooting need to inform themselves of the facts and communicate those facts whenever and wherever possible to hold the modern barbarians at bay.

 

[dmazur]

I certainly don't understand lead as much as I should, I suppose. Yes, the particulate form is dangerous, as would be created from sanding lead paint. They found high levels of lead in children of workers who tracked lead home in their shoes/clothing from high levels of lead in the workplace.

The problem with birds, especially waterfowl, is that they scoop up gravel or something to aid in digestion in a "craw" (?) and this material isn't readily passed through as in a human digestive system. If the gravel contains lead shot, they retain that in an environment with stomach acids and the result is lead poisoning.

However, if you or I swallow a fishing sinker, the result isn't the same, as it generally goes right on through. Very little absorbtion into bloodstream.

What I don't get is the condor thing. There are going to be bullets in game that is wounded, so the condors pick it over and eat the bullets? Is that the argument? I believe I read that this was only hypothesis, with no study showing confirming data. Nevertheless, as endangered species are involved, a California lead ammunition ban (for hunting) was the result.

Washington State may be next. There's a proposed bill which is supposed to address condors that could be released in Oregon, and "they might fly into Washington State." The bill, if signed into law, would give WSDFW the authority to designate certain areas where lead ammunition would not be allowed for hunting.

I approve of Nosler's efforts to make lead-free ammunition & bullets, not because I believe the anti-lead legislation is the correct thing to do, but because it provides a way for us to continue to enjoy our sport. (Other manufacturers make lead-free ammo, too, such as Barnes. I believe Hornady is joining in, too.)

 

[clearwater]

I'm no fan of banning lead ammunition, but there are some concerns that are valid, IMO.

If an indoor shooting range can't keep their airborne lead levels down to safe levels, they can either put in a very expensive air handling system or ban shooting unjacketed lead bullets. (I think the plated ones, like Berrys, are also OK.)

If an outdoor shooting range has trouble with lead leaching into groundwater or nearby watersheds, they can just recover lead from the berms periodically, or build a containment sand pit with a roof to eliminate the lead leaching issue.

In other words, make the contamination illegal, not the activity. Then it is possible to devise "engineering controls" to allow the activity to continue.

Back to tungsten. If it's encased in a copper jacket, for proper engagement with the rifling, I doubt if you are going to generate any airborne tungsten particulates on firing. (The same way jacketed lead bullets are OK for indoor range use...no lead particulates.)

No particulates, no cancer.

Tungsten too can leach into ground water, and most bullets
make with it are a frangible powder. But again it can be
managed like anything else.

Part of my point in posting is for education, and part to show the
unintended consequences of those who would rush to pass
laws banning something then possibly replace it with something
worse.

 

[FOTIS]

Can any one tell me what "for sure" doesn't cause cancer?????

Jack Daniels
Weatherbies
Exotic Dancers
Porsches

:lol:

 

[Antelope_Sniper]

Hey POP that sounds like the makings of a might fine night......(so long as the Mrs.'s doesn't find out.) :wink:

 

[old #7]

Can any one tell me what "for sure" doesn't cause cancer?????

Jack Daniels
Weatherbies
Exotic Dancers
Porsches

:lol:

I like it but would trade the Jack for some Pendelton or Knob Creek.

 

[old #7]

Can any one tell what "for sure" doesn't cause cancer?????

No, I don't think anyone can. That's why we wear respirators at work for everything we have any doubts on, including dust. WISHA doesn't require it, but we joked that 5 years from now some clever scientist will find something new in dust to be afraid of, so we may as well exceed the requirements and play it safe.

I can see that people who have to wear respirators for the entire shift wouldn't like this approach, but generally the workplace has engineered air handlers or glove boxes or something so their exposure is eliminated and they can dispense with respirators.

I believe that the concerns about lead are blown out of proportion. There was a minor scandal recently about some state (Minnesota?) that withdrew game from a "feed the hungry" program out of lead concerns. CDC in Atlanta did a follow-up study to confirm/deny this and found out it was bunk, promoted by a local person with ties to an animal-rights group.

With this kind of nonsense going on, it's no wonder a few of us are skeptical when someone announces the latest "it's bad for you" boogeyman.

Your clever scientist may find out that the emisions from producing the respirator are more harmfull than the dust. Not to mention the off gassing of chemicals(the smell of plastics) that you breathe in while wearing the respirator. :wink:

 

[BK]

Knob Creek

Or Maker's Mark. anything but Jack. My only use for Jack is for cooking pot roasts in the crock pot, or cleaning cosmoline off milsurp rifles.

 

[tjen]

Sounds like what CA should have pasted was a law that states "use enough bullet" for 110% penitration and the preceived problem is solved. :grin:

 

[dmazur]

Your clever scientist may find out that the emisions from producing the respirator are more harmfull than the dust. Not to mention the off gassing of chemicals(the smell of plastics) that you breathe in while wearing the respirator.

You may have a point. And I noticed the smileys.

However, after we assumed "they" would find something harmful in dust, our safety officer suggested we wet down our tire loft and wear HEPA cartridges when sweeping, due to possible concerns with hantavirus, and we later read that there was a concern with allergic reactions to prolonged exposure to cedar dust.

Then there's the concern with toxic mold spores when working under houses...

We have silicone rubber facepieces (nonallergenic, easily cleaned), change cartridges so they don't grow mold internally, and select cartridges based on what we're going to be exposed to. For much of what we do, there is no choice. State law requires wearing a respirator. Rather than try for minimum compliance, we try to follow the requirements to the highest possible standard, including equipment quality.

The crew wears nitrile gloves to prevent skin absorbtion of solvents, too.

I understand the attempt at humor, I think, but we're using technology the best we know how to protect our workers from hazards in the workplace and this is generally considered "good" rather than "bad". At safety meetings, most of them say they follow these practices at home, too, even though state law doesn't apply.

Back to the concern about tungsten, I agree completely that with untried materials it isn't wise to assume something is safe. I would prefer to see an effect made illegal (like contaminating groundwater) rather than ban an activity such as shooting.

A concern should be that this isn't taught in schools. The individual is lucky to get some training in material safety at the workplace, and then it is generally limited to the specific concerns present at that site.

As already noted, these bans are fueled by "feelings", not hard facts. We can all try to educate anyone willing to sit still for 5 minutes. It might influence a future vote.

 

[Harpersend]

Anyone remember saccharin??? It caused cancer in mice too... Only thing is at the concentration levels that they recieved an average human would have to consume an Olympic-sized swimming pool of it to get cancer!!!