The image with the lead in the duck is from 1966 William. No steel shot in 1966, other than that being investigated by Olin. Read a little closer.
Relevant to Craig's observation, I understand how academics work. I was at the UMKC-SOM for 7 years. Advancement is dependent of publishing and obtaining grant money (inter-related). The folks paying for studies expect the results they hope for. But today, every article requires the authors to list any financial connections to those paying for the studies. And falsifying data is academic suicide. You'll be eventually caught, and teaching in a Jr. High the rest of your life.
Blood lead testing has been confirmed by erythrocyte protoporphyrin since the 70s, and can be performed in the field with a small (finger prick-like) sample. It has nothing to do with lead isotope analysis.
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/11605/Kennedy1977.pdf?sequence=1William: Did you miss that my name is Drew? Could you please use it?
Preacher, an expert and know-it-all like you should be aware that steel shot in a .175" diameter has been commercially available since the 1920's. And believe it or not, little round stones have been found in the crops and gizzards of birds for much longer than that. White dots on a x-ray may or may not be lead, even in 1966. And even the actual presence of lead shot in a crop or gizzard is not absolute proof that lead ammunition is the major or sole source of systemic elevated lead levels. There are many sources of environmental lead, and many that are far more bio-available. Please pay attention. I am here to debunk junk and agenda driven "science", not to give it credence.... no matter how loathsome I find you to be.
I was particularly amused by your assertion that we should simply trust anything published by researchers, no matter what personal biases or agendas they may have... so long as they are not part of the D.C. Swamp.
That's just silly and naive. I have previously mentioned how researchers at my alma mater and East Anglia University conspired to falsify and manipulate climate data in order to "prove" that global temperatures were rising far faster and higher than they actually are. This was the famous 2009 Climategate Scandal. However, even though researchers were caught, their careers were not ruined, and they were not relegated to teaching Jr. High School, as you assert. The complicit Liberal Left media and academia simply swept it under the rug, and they didn't talk about Global Warming very much for a year or so until the scandal faded from memory. There are many other examples of research being falsified or manipulated to satisfy an agenda. But you knew that.
Another point is that I didn't bring up stable lead isotope analysis as evidence that the lead in bird's blood came from lead shot. That was your buddy the nutty professor. I merely pointed to the absurdity of that tired old crap being used by researchers as proof positive that our lead ammo must be the one true cause of plumbism in birds. Maybe you should spend more time on reading comprehension, and less time attempting to prove me wrong.
I liked your list of symptoms associated with lead poisoning in birds. I was perfectly aware of them. And that was precisely why I questioned the nutty professor and Larry about that poor eagle in the Lead and Condors thread that allegedly had many times the lethal dose of lead in its' blood. Yet it was somehow strong enough and coordinated enough to fly and perch in a tree. Anti-lead ammo advocates swallow that crap in their precious anti-lead research papers, and expect us to swallow it too. And you apparently also think we should believe it... so long as the "science" didn't come from the D.C. Swamp. Do you ever think before you get on your soap-box?
I also found it amusing that your entry into this thread was some deep concern that there would be repetition of things said in the prior anti-lead ammo threads. Too bad you are too self-centered to notice the many times you have repeated the same old copy-and-paste shotgun pressure graphs, load data for long obsolete powders, pictures of cracked shotgun frames, old advertisements, etc., etc.
Finally, I'd like to explain once again why I call you Preacher. It is NOT a term of respect. Anything but! I do it because you have continually behaved in a most un-Christian manner, and are a parody of a preacher, not worthy of respect in my opinion. In addition, you know full well that I have been called Keith since I was an infant, and never went by William. Yet you choose to be cute, and continue to disrespect me. Knock yourself out. But expecting me to respect you, while you disrespect me in the same sentence. is simply further evidence of your terminal narcissism. Get over yourself Preacher. Maybe consider having your blood tested for elevated lead levels, or acid in your soul. You could always just put me on IGNORE, as Stan does with the professor. Meanwhile, I enjoy living rent-free in your little head.
