TexasCHLforum.com

I don't get it...

How can lead be bad for the earth when it is found naturally IN the earth?

It's not bad for the earth...it's bad for the people. And it getting in top soil means it will be in the ground water and water supply in places it wouldn't ordinarily be. But the biggest problem is the risk to the people working with it day in and day out. If they can accomplish the same thing in a safer way, I think it is great! Why not try and see how it works?

PBratton wrote:I don't get it...

How can lead be bad for the earth when it is found naturally IN the earth?

It's a lot like petrochemicals.

If you leave them (or lead) where they've been for thousands of years, there's no problem.

If you extract and refine them you've got different materials and a new situation with different risks.

PBratton wrote:I don't get it...

How can lead be bad for the earth when it is found naturally IN the earth?

Radon is found naturally in the earth, but it isn't healthy to living things. Crude oil is found in the earth and we pump it out. But it doesn't play nicely when massive amounts leak out into the waters.

I am not justifying the green bullet concept. In fact, I remain somewhat skeptical. But the fact that lead is a naturally occurring element is not of itself, a justification that it does not harm when re-deposited after use in ammunition.

---

Excaliber beat me to it.

I'd love to see some studies that lead left from our bullets was causing harm. Heck, there was a ton of lead scattered all over Europe between, oh I don't know, the years of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. Was there every any evidence of any environmental or personal harm from all the lead?

I just have a hard time believing that we put enough lead in the ground for it to matter one way or the other.

74novaman wrote:I'd love to see some studies that lead left from our bullets was causing harm. Heck, there was a ton of lead scattered all over Europe between, oh I don't know, the years of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. Was there every any evidence of any environmental or personal harm from all the lead?

I just have a hard time believing that we put enough lead in the ground for it to matter one way or the other.

The studies that have been done have consistently shown that the lead in range backstops and similar areas is not soluble and does not leach into the water table or contaminate surrounding areas.

Your fishing sinkers aren't poisoning the fish or the water supply either.

You wouldn't know that if you only read the leftstream media hype designed to whip up support for further restrictions on 2A rights.

Excaliber wrote:

74novaman wrote:I'd love to see some studies that lead left from our bullets was causing harm. Heck, there was a ton of lead scattered all over Europe between, oh I don't know, the years of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. Was there every any evidence of any environmental or personal harm from all the lead?

I just have a hard time believing that we put enough lead in the ground for it to matter one way or the other.

The studies that have been done have consistently shown that the lead in range backstops and similar areas is not soluble and does not leach into the water table or contaminate surrounding areas.

Your fishing sinkers aren't poisoning the fish or the water supply either.

You wouldn't know that if you only read the leftstream media hype designed to whip up support for further restrictions on 2A rights.

The range master at a local range says not to drink from their water fountains as they use well water and the ground is full of lead. He said no one there drinks the water for that reason. Apparently the belief that lead exposure (inhaled from the primer, ingested from shooting then not washing hands before eating, leaching into ground water, etc) has reached much further than leftist 2A haters.

It's actually the lead oxide that is dangerous, from what I understand

I'll bet that if you tested any range for lead, you would be more likely to find it at the firing line than at the backstop.

Hoi Polloi wrote:If they can accomplish the same thing in a safer way, I think it is great! Why not try and see how it works?

The problem is that (at least in the articles listed) they don't say exactly "how" the new ammo performed better, just that it did. The real test will be in use in battle where if it doesn't perform as well, our people will die.

Almost anyone who spent time in the military can tell you tales of the next greatest new and improved whizbang gadget turned out to be a piece of junk. All too often, "new and improved" turned out to really mean General So-and-so's pet project.

AndyC wrote:As long as it's capable of smoking bad guys as well as the original ammo does, cool.

My main issue is the cost, the military already has a huge budget, about 38% all government spending I think, and uses A LOT of ammo. Now I know when purchasing in bulk saves some money but with the amount used and the increased price of "green ammo" I only see money going down the tubes. The price of lead free ammo is almost double the cost of traditional ammo where I have seen it. Having said that I don't think osama would of known the difference.

loadedliberal wrote:
Why

Because they don't have enough green yet?

Excaliber wrote:

74novaman wrote:I'd love to see some studies that lead left from our bullets was causing harm. Heck, there was a ton of lead scattered all over Europe between, oh I don't know, the years of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. Was there every any evidence of any environmental or personal harm from all the lead?

I just have a hard time believing that we put enough lead in the ground for it to matter one way or the other.

The studies that have been done have consistently shown that the lead in range backstops and similar areas is not soluble and does not leach into the water table or contaminate surrounding areas.

Your fishing sinkers aren't poisoning the fish or the water supply either.

You wouldn't know that if you only read the leftstream media hype designed to whip up support for further restrictions on 2A rights.

BINGO! Lead IS a hazard in powdered or other small particulate form, only. Folks who work at indoor ranges without good ventilation have risk of actual lead poisoning (vs. the type given by our military to the terrorists, ha ha)...but like you said, Excalibur, in solid form, it simply does NOT present the risk that some claim. Which they want to claim, BTW, so they can ban it and force the price of ammo through the roof...thus impacting hunting, the shooting sports, and even self-defense training...the left has had a difficult time of it banning firearms themselves, so they now switch tactics...