Is This True?

[dennishoddy]

Dennis, I was responding to this:


The effects of lead on waterfowl are pretty well documented. You can PM me and I can send you whatever papers I can find on EBSCO; there's other stuff but I'm not going to pester the university ILL office over a forums argument. You didn't say anything about plated lead until later and I wasn't responding to that.

The effects of lead on waterfowl are pretty well documented. You can PM me and I can send you whatever papers I can find on EBSCO; there's other stuff but I'm not going to pester the university ILL office over a forums argument. You didn't say anything about plated lead until later and I wasn't responding to that.

I'll accept your study, and look forward to reading it. As I've said I'm not opposed to learning, and not stuck in a rut that won't allow a differing opinion with sufficient proof.
I'll submit the latest from NPWRC.
It documents how many lead shot have been found in the gizzards of waterfowl, and does so very accurately.
What it doesn't really show is that how many that ingest the pellets actually die from lead poisoning. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see where it says if a duck ingests a pellet it dies. If it ingests 10 pellets, they can't say how many die, they just show that lead is in their system, and within a 20 hour period, the pellets are expelled, some degraded, most intact.
There is a lot to read on the subject, and after reading for hours the last couple of days, I have yet to see any data that says if a duck has a pellet in its gizzard it dies from lead poisoning, or if it has 20. There is no direct correlation that I've found. Just that ducks have ingested lead.

BTW the data that was used in 91 to make it illegal to use lead for waterfowl was developed from data acquired in the 1950's up to the 1980's.

Bellrose 1959:256
Bellrose (1959:262-263)
Montalbano and Hines (1978)
Anderson and Havera (1985: 29)
Mudge (1983: 340)
Winchester Group (1974)
Niethammer et al. (1985)
Munoz and Gesell 1976
Bazell (1971: 130)

 

[technetium-99m]

My lab time was fairly short but I think more people should respond to reviewers by using the f****** idiot response. Usually editors can see through thinly veiled cucumber waving but sometimes you just have to do the unrelated work and cram it in the paper.

Whatever field you're in you know the great groups from the mediocre, and hopefully the sorry groups aren't numerous. My short time as a student killed a lot of ideals I held about basic research and the mindless BS that surrounds it.