The Blog *No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money* is reporting that the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the EPA regarding the EPA's inability to move the lead ban petition forward.

 

Interesting tidbit, there's a hunter's shill group called *Project Gun Pile* who filed in support of the Center for Biological Diversity.

 

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/11/who-or-what-is-project-gutpile.html

 

Looks like this won't go away, and our good friend from Illinois Bobby Rush introduced a bill which would give the EPA power to ban lead ammo as a toxic substance, and let's not forget Lautenmummy supports the lead ammo ban (well d'uh).

guess this will make us all switch to steel core ammo..

guess this will make us all switch to steel core ammo..

 

I'm pretty sure NJ classifies that as *armor piercing*.

I'm pretty sure NJ classifies that as *armor piercing*.

well we know how tuff the animals are becomming

I'm pretty sure NJ classifies that as *armor piercing*.

 

 

I am aware...

I'm pretty sure NJ classifies that as *armor piercing*.

 

We'll have to replace the lead with grape jelly... Then maybe the libtards will shut up and go back to worrying about increasing CAFE Standards for hybrid SUVs and reducing cow flatulence... I find it amazing how many things they are experts on.

I understand where there coming from, being a biologist myself. However, i see no real hard data based on there compliant. They know all to well that they need some hard data if they want to make anything happen regarding the issue, you cant say oh well its going to poison the wildlife... since lead has been used for so many years they have plenty of ways to test the impact lead has on the environment. I would have to say the biggest concern for me, this personally the way i view the topic, would be outdoor ranges that don't properly clean up, and an accumulation of lead could lead to toxic levels of run off water.

 

Personally i'm all about the environment, not one of those tree huggers, however, through my own education i have be continuously told that unless there is statistical data to support a given topic, no matter what it may be, no real conclusion can be made. The EPA can only fight something if they have sufficient supporting data, which it looks like they didn't. For them to be sued by a group, and one that in particular knows very well why the EPA dropped the case, makes absolutely no sense. I could see a group who is pro-gun control getting the panties in a twist, but in real life this is one of those groups who should have been contributing data to the cause, not saying the EPA didnt do the job because the rest of the scientific community found no reason to ban lead.

 

Im going to go out on a limb here and say... some one contributed a lot of money to this organization so there voice could be herd, because if the EPA couldn't hold up the case, there is no way in hell this group will.

 

All semester i have been doing research projects on these types of issues, although regarding plants, the basic principles are all the same regarding journal articles. Like said if something was significant, you would find a lead controversy article in a ecology journal, which found significant statistical data, which shows how lead impacts the environment... From what i can find no such article exists, where no one has tested a hypothesis, or other have come up empty handed with mixed results, its all the same, either find the issue or shut up, no one wants to hear your personal opinion.

 

This is where the global warming debate fits in, people have been fighting for and against, but the reality is if you bothered to look at how the earth systems work, you would realize it is about 1000X more complicated then taking a for and against position. And 99% of the time the people who actually have something to say, have no idea what there talking about. I dont want to get into a science lesson here, but the point is with out data, all you have is an opinion. In the scientific community a opinion is worth a hand full of jelly beans.

I understand where there coming from, being a biologist myself. However, i see no real hard data based on there compliant. They know all to well that they need some hard data if they want to make anything happen regarding the issue, you cant say oh well its going to poison the wildlife... since lead has been used for so many years they have plenty of ways to test the impact lead has on the environment. I would have to say the biggest concern for me, this personally the way i view the topic, would be outdoor ranges that don't properly clean up, and an accumulation of lead could lead to toxic levels of run off water.

 

Personally i'm all about the environment, not one of those tree huggers, however, through my own education i have be continuously told that unless there is statistical data to support a given topic, no matter what it may be, no real conclusion can be made. The EPA can only fight something if they have sufficient supporting data, which it looks like they didn't. For them to be sued by a group, and one that in particular knows very well why the EPA dropped the case, makes absolutely no sense. I could see a group who is pro-gun control getting the panties in a twist, but in real life this is one of those groups who should have been contributing data to the cause, not saying the EPA didnt do the job because the rest of the scientific community found no reason to ban lead.

 

Im going to go out on a limb here and say... some one contributed a lot of money to this organization so there voice could be herd, because if the EPA couldn't hold up the case, there is no way in hell this group will.

 

All semester i have been doing research projects on these types of issues, although regarding plants, the basic principles are all the same regarding journal articles. Like said if something was significant, you would find a lead controversy article in a ecology journal, which found significant statistical data, which shows how lead impacts the environment... From what i can find no such article exists, where no one has tested a hypothesis, or other have come up empty handed with mixed results, its all the same, either find the issue or shut up, no one wants to hear your personal opinion.

 

This is where the global warming debate fits in, people have been fighting for and against, but the reality is if you bothered to look at how the earth systems work, you would realize it is about 1000X more complicated then taking a for and against position. And 99% of the time the people who actually have something to say, have no idea what there talking about. I dont want to get into a science lesson here, but the point is with out data, all you have is an opinion. In the scientific community a opinion is worth a hand full of jelly beans.

Maybe you would know... I thought I heard that lead doesn't leach when it gets into the soil?

edit.DP

Maybe you would know... I thought I heard that lead doesn't leach when it gets into the soil?

 

Well in short yes it can, to what degree depends on the conditions. For instance soil with varying ph concentrations may leach lead quicker/slower, or whether the bullet is intact or in in small pieces giving more surface area. Many factors. The questions is, these places can pick up after themselves, and in the wild, is enough lead being deposited to even make a significant impact, my guess probably not.

Here's a good read.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rmizzo/firingrange.htm

 

I see no reason not to hold standards on lead, but to ban it seems ridiculous.