Is This True?

[poopgiggle]

"If lead affects condor’s, it should also affect buzzards in the same way, but I don’t see a shortage of buzzards anywhere.

This assumes that buzzards are affected by lead the same way as condors are, and that they are exposed to just as much lead as condors are. That's a big assumption.

Coyotes eat the same dead animals that condor’s do, seems to be a good population of coyotes everywhere.

Again, coyotes probably eat different things in different amounts than condors. Also they're not condors. They're not even birds. Apples to oranges comparison.

The greenie’s have been trying to ban lead all over the U.S. Just like they used the Spotted Owl to shut down the timber industry in the northwest, they’ll use the condor to shut down hunting in California or anywhere else, if they can.

Blah blah LIBERAL AGENDA blah blah

Look at the mercury thermometer, it had to be banned because they said people could get mercury poisoning from it. Then they turn around and make us get rid of our non polluting light bulbs, and make us use light bulbs with mercury in them, because they save energy, that’s a joke also. Now, if you break a bulb, your suppose to call a hazmat team in to clean them up."

"People didn't know that mercury was dangerous when I was younger, so they shouldn't know that it's dangerous now!"

C'mon Dennis. You're one of the smartest posters on this forum. You should know better.

 

[dennishoddy]

This assumes that buzzards are affected by lead the same way as condors are, and that they are exposed to just as much lead as condors are. That's a big assumption.




Again, coyotes probably eat different things in different amounts than condors. Also they're not condors. They're not even birds. Apples to oranges comparison.




Blah blah LIBERAL AGENDA blah blah




"People didn't know that mercury was dangerous when I was younger, so they shouldn't know that it's dangerous now!"

C'mon Dennis. You're one of the smartest posters on this forum. You should know better.

LOL, I just thought it was interesting.

Coyotes, and buzzards are carrion eaters like the condor, so the comparison stands. I haven't studied the digestive systems of each specie, and compared them against lead ingestion. I don't know about any study out there that has done that? Perhaps one of our members knows of one?

My original point was that I found a study that said the newer, harder lead, and coated lead cannot be contributing to lead poisoning in condors, or waterfowl, no matter that it is found in their craws.
I read it on another forum or magazine. (I subscribe to about a half dozen hunting/shooting magazines) and I can't find the dammed thing! It did get into why duck populations boom or bust, and its all about mother nature, not lead.

Coyotes/buzzards eat a lot of ducks that are crippled by the steel shot and die elsewhere.(shooting game using the limitations of the ammo used is a whole different thread) The lead pellets have to travel through their digestive system as well.
Does lead effect them like it does waterfowl or condors?

Who knows? To be honest, I can't find any real study's about how lead is so terrible for waterfowl. I've looked and I'm ready to be corrected, but google just isn't providing the information to confirm this or disprove it as well.

With your response, I'm sure your seeing the same.

 

[Dux-R-Us]

Dennis Wrote;


"But, you can't deny that results by some scientists have been falsified and skewed to serve their political leanings."

So please name a few and provide your evidence. I'd like to read about this. If and when a scientist is caught "cooking" the data as we call it, their career is basically over and litigation against them may occur.

The research scientists I know and have known aren't in the business of politicking, except perhaps the worst of the Republican ones. :sarcastichand: That is satire, by the way.

There is this thing called peer review that is very effective for keeping "bad science" from being published, at least for the more prestigious journals with high impact factors. I concede there are plenty of poor studies in small regional journals, and then there are the publications where no peer review is needed. A good editor will catch anyone attempting to cite non-peer reviewed publications. And only an idiot would bother reading the latter category, unless a good laugh is wanted.

I ought to start my own publication; I'd call it the Journal of Arm Waving (JAW). You guys can publish in there to your hearts content. I will offer reduced page charges if you include a picture of yourself wearing your BS jersey while holding up your data. :read:

The BS is getting too deep as usual on BS. bye-bye.

K

 

[DoctorJJ]

Read the climategate emails to get a real understanding of how bad the "peer review" is flawed. Honestly, that term has essentially zero meaning for me at this point.

 

[Dux-R-Us]

Oh just one more little thing; real scientists don't rely on Google to do their literature searches, although Google Scholar is not too bad at finding the most recent studies published on line.

Bye for now.

I remain, respectfully yours in unabashed Liberalism and Arrogance.

K

 

[mike cyrwus]

as an ex-scientist who worked in a couple NSF and DOE funded academic labs studying the ecosystem-level response to greenhouse gases, and how to potentially mitigate it, I will give you the short and sweet of what the TRUTH is. and then Im out.

Do humans affect the climate? YES
Do humans that study it affect the studies? YES
Can some bad things happen potentially? YES
Can good things result also, perhaps? YES
Do some scientists have an agenda? Many, F*** YES (but not all)
Does their agenda affect their work? F*** YES
Is issue too politicized on both sides so as to make it a useless endeavor? YES
What should we do about it, Mike? Shift the debate from how to reverse or change it, and turn it into how to adapt to it, profit from it.
What are you going to do about it, Mike? Sorry, I cant hear you, My heads back in the sand.

 

[technetium-99m]

One thing I'll say regarding peer review. I've seen some petty petty things done during that process. Everything from competing labs holding up each others papers to reviewers demanding pointless experiments that add nothing to the story in whats been submitted. The process does result in good work being published, but not as much as you may think.

 

[dennishoddy]

Kevin, so far, I've been attempting to defend the statement I made, with limited resources according to you.

Perhaps in your review of study's about lead ingestion by waterfowl, you might produce a peer based, non biased study by a credible researcher to prove hard and copper coated lead is deadly when ingested by the birds.

I say its not. Prove me wrong.

I said it earlier, and I'll repeat it. I stand to be corrected.

I remain, respectfully yours as an unabashed redneck.

 

[Wall]

What should we do about it, Mike?
What are you going to do about it, Mike?

Anybody else think it's just Badass when Mike talks in 3rd person?

 

[dennishoddy]

It scares me.

 

[Scott Hearn]

Anybody else think it's just Badass when Mike talks in 3rd person?

Just plain awesome, that's what it is...

 

[45recoil]

Anybody else think it's just Badass when Mike talks in 3rd person?

I got half chubbed

 

[DoctorJJ]

He certainly won the argument...




...and I'm not even sure what side he was on.

 

[threegungeezer]

He certainly won the argument...




...and I'm not even sure what side he was on.

Me either

View attachment 5494

 

[Dux-R-Us]

as an ex-scientist who worked in a couple NSF and DOE funded academic labs studying the ecosystem-level response to greenhouse gases, and how to potentially mitigate it, I will give you the short and sweet of what the TRUTH is. and then Im out.

What is truth? Is it not what you believe?
Are there more than one truth? - Me thinks so.

anyways, I like you guys. I really do. I just can't help myself playing Devil's advocate, and I never intend to hurt anyone personally. You should know (if you have not already figured it out) that I post things that are obvious baits, like dropping a worm in deep hole on the opening of the trout season. I mostly want to stimulate meaningful dialogue, but email/posts are the worst way to communicate. the reader cannot see or observe the non-verbal cues, like my big grin and smile.

I can be a pain in the butt, but that is just part of my charm.

BTW I never did any literature search on lead shot and waterfowl. Because someone else brought up the topic, I was asking to see their cards. That's all.

My last question on this thread, I promise, is just what exactly is a Redneck? I was trying to define this for one of my international students this summer. I'm not sure I did it justice.

Ciao, K

 

[Dux-R-Us]

Read the climategate emails to get a real understanding of how bad the "peer review" is flawed. Honestly, that term has essentially zero meaning for me at this point.

This statement sounds like the words of a bitter academic. (sad face).

 

[scubor2]

I remain, respectfully yours in unabashed Liberalism and Arrogance.

K

No Silly, that's Obama. :girlwacko:

 

[Bob Sanders]

A Redneck is someone that speaks slowly enough so as not to out run their brain. While perceived as simple, Rednecks are quite intelligent, and they know exactly when to pontificate and exactly when to hold their tongue. Many also have a knack for producing fine table fare as well as fine spirits from the surrounding natural environment. Also, Rednecks are fiercely loyal friends, especially during times of extreme duress.

Hope that clears things up!

 

[poopgiggle]

Really what I took away from this thread is that I need to avoid posting when I'm pregaming for an evening of barhopping.

One thing I'll say regarding peer review. I've seen some petty petty things done during that process. Everything from competing labs holding up each others papers to reviewers demanding pointless experiments that add nothing to the story in whats been submitted. The process does result in good work being published, but not as much as you may think.

This is definitely true.

However you should see what gets published in non-peer-reviewed publications. I read an article in a non-peer-reviewed accident reconstruction magazine where the author asserted that Newton's Third Law didn't apply in some test that he did. I'm not sure if you know what a lynch mob of ME PhDs looks like but it's frightening.

The scientific process is made up of people so it's going to be imperfect. It's a bit worse because those people have frequently have big egos, no social skills, and can't be fired. However it's the best system we have.

Dennis, I was responding to this:

From what I've seen, the toxic effects of lead on waterfowl can run any way a person wants to read it.

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.

 

[poopgiggle]

Also, let's all laugh at uncomfortably true facts about the scientific method: