Peer review is an important medical standard. It may be present in all the referenced studies, but probably shouldn't be assumed.
Doc Drew, is a 2015, soil sample study relevant? Probably and possibly, but how many decades after the lead ban is this time period, and why are we looking at soil samples, when these typical non tox waterfowl zones are wetlands? It's okay, the speculations starts, stratified layers of settlement from previous generation hunters are continually uncovered and ingested by waterfowl.
Back up a bit to the soil sample studies, often related to Woodcock models and other upland situations. The glory pictures of waterfowl xrays showing ingested lead shot, are basically nonexistent in Woodcock, but dismissed as immaterial to their conclusions. Yet, an xray caught your attention to be worthy of highlight on an earlier comment. Soar Raptors is a .org, heavily gov funded source, that appeared in previous "discussions" here. They had a glory picture of a hundred and twenty or thirty some odd lead fragment xray, supposedly ingested by a Bald Eagle feeding on a hunter's big game gut pile. I seems it has since been pulled, even though it was likely a great emotional donation magnet for their cause.
Peer review is a living, evolving concept. The source of funding in today's science will largely point to conclusions anticipated, and the products of our modern higher education system are peers who are trained to see socio-political agendas as integral fact. The peers are the greens with an agenda, the example of how "we" handled covid should be ample evidence.
