577

Most gun owners use lead ammunition, yet half don’t practice hygiene behaviors after shooting (hsph.harvard.edu)

submitted 1 day ago by dacalla@lemmy.zip to c/science@lemmy.world

383 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm older but I've been shooting since I was around the same age. This whole thing about lead poisoning is just dumb, most ammunition is wax covered if it's bare lead (22lr) or it's copper jacketed. The amount of lead you're handling is miniscule and everyone I shoot with and have ever shot with, we wash our hands before we eat. It's not rocket science, most people who aren't gross wash their hands before they consume food even if they're just at a desk job.

This study is junk science anyways. They literally just conducted a survey, which is just dumb for this type of study. How about go measure actually how much lead is deposited on clothing or gear, it's probably not even registrable.

If they wanted real data, they should go to the military and get data. Most people who shoot, do it once or twice a month at best (shits not cheap for most people) and most of the time they're doing it for an hour or two at most.

People living in older cities are going to be getting more exposure from leaded soil than someone going to a range once a month.

Nothing burger meant to paint gun owners as idiots.

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

Yes, before eat food, if available wash hands. If I had my hands inside a deer or something of course I'd wait until I could clean up. Taking a few shots at a squirrel or something doesn't seem the same kind of dirty.

[-] Hobo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379726003168?dgcid=author

Okay here's the study. In the conclusion it says:

Extant literature has demonstrated that even low levels of lead contribute to significant impairments across the life course.1 Associations between firearm use and blood lead concentrations have been well documented among adults.4 For children, evidence is accumulating that firearm-related lead exposure may be a serious public health problem, as even low-level exposures result in higher levels of externalizing and depressive symptoms and an increased risk of criminality and violent injury.3,32,

Here's a couple of those studies cited:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022347624000787

These data provide state-level evidence that firearms may be an important source of child lead exposure. More research is needed to substantiate this relationship and identify modifiable pathways of exposure at the individual level.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121009361

Children in the highest quartile communities were 2.16 times more likely to have elevated BLLs when compared to their peers in the lower quartiles. A one standard deviation change in firearm licensure percentage was found to reflect a 0.96% increase in elevated pediatric blood lead levels. Regression analyses demonstrated that the inclusion of firearm licensure significantly improved the prediction of pediatric BLL.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393512300511X

Firearms licensure is significantly associated with pediatric lead levels.

Gun-adjacent occupations are significantly associated with pediatric lead levels.

Firearm licensure is extremely relevant when considering elevated child blood lead levels.

So like maybe there is something and we should keep looking? These sorts of survey studies are also helpful to identify populations that may be affected in longitudinal studies. Perhaps you should just wash your hads and practice a little more safety/isolation with your shooting garb. I dunno it seems like a pretty easy and straightforward way to mitigate a potential risk of lead exposure, that at least several research scientist have identified as a risk, to you and your family.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

Every one of those has a "may" in there. Sure do the research, but right now these studies have show 0 evidence that it's actually a significant problem. They literally read like "people who shoot guns are idiots". Just look at how people are responding in this thread. I'd like to see the study actually go and test clothing and how much lead is aerosolized with each common type of primer/caliber and from someone shooting more than 30mins.

"Most reported shooting monthly or less (94%) but for ≥30 minutes (91%); 32% primarily shot indoors."

https://www.umass.edu/agriculture-food-environment/soil-plant-nutrient-testing-laboratory/fact-sheets/soil-lead-fact-sheet

Lead in soil is a much bigger issue in cities from years and years of leaded fuels/leaded paints.

[-] Hobo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What? Your reading comprehension is really, like extremely, bad. You might want to get that checked out. That or you're super desperate to confirm your biases. You should consider reading them again and trying to remove this weird obsession with thinking multiple scientist, across several universities, are conspiring to make gun owners look dumb by trying to make sure they aren't exposed to lead. Either way, given your response here I think I'm done with this conversation.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Literally first link is the link that is under discussion here. It has no data about lead levels, and is what I pointed out.

Second link, your own quoted bit of it says "may be"

Third link,

Models were adjusted for percent of a population employed in construction, agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining, income distribution, and potential lead paint exposure, which were found to be the primary predictors of elevated pediatric blood lead levels.

And

Firearm use and ownership remains one of the least researched areas in the public health sphere. While the risks of childhood lead exposure are widely understood, including the mechanisms of firearm-related lead exposure and tracking, to date no research has extensively examined it in children and on the community level. Our findings indicate a dire need for continued research on the risks associated with firearm use, ownership, and lead exposure.

Which follows into the 4th study, that is just a repeat of the 3rd link...

Starts off with:

Lead exposure is a significant public health concern and children are at the greatest risk given their exposure to take-home lead. Firearm-related take-home lead exposure may be one of the greatest influences on elevated pediatric blood lead levels.

Again may be...why? Because it's very difficult to correlate the two, because...as the study states:

Pediatric blood lead levels were positively correlated with licensure, poverty, and certain occupations and negatively correlated with lead in water and police or firefighter employment.

Most people who live or work in clean environments and have money usually are not firearm owners. Aka a large portion of firearm owners are not rich. So they have occupations that are more likely to be around lead exposure, and they're more likely to live in older parts of a city or area that has more lead exposure via the soil like I pointed out.

I suggest you read your own links before you call out my reading comprehension. None of these links actively provide evidence that firearms are a major source of lead exposure...as I stated above, they should be looking at the military more than someone shooting for a whooping 30mins a month.

More research is required to substantiate this relationship on the individual-level and into prevention/mitigation.

I agree study link number 4....

[-] Hobo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You are being incredibly selective in your reading and it's showing in your highlights. You deliberately didn't highlight the word "licensure" for instance in one of your quotes. You are literally following the climate denier playbook here and selectively choosing words in the non-conclusion parts of studies and glossing over the data parts. I don't know what to tell you other than have a nice day, cause I, nor the absolute mountain of evidence to the contrary of your belief, is going to convince you otherwise.

Just note to anyone else that stumbles upon this thread, there are literally hundreds of studies that have shown that firearm use and lead levels have a direct correlation. Here's an example of a review of some of those studies done by the NIH in regards to specifically firing ranges:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5379568/

Results

Thirty-six articles were reviewed that included BLLs from shooters at firing ranges. In 31 studies BLLs > 10 μg/dL were reported in some shooters, 18 studies reported BLLs > 20 μg/dL, 17 studies > 30 μg/d, and 15 studies BLLs > 40 μg/dL. The literature indicates that BLLs in shooters are associated with Pb aerosol discharge from guns and air Pb at firing ranges, number of bullets discharged, and the caliber of weapon fired.

Furthermore the conclusion is not a "may be" no matter how much anyone wishes it to be so:

Shooting at firing ranges results in the discharge of Pb dust, elevated BLLs, and exposures that are associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. Women and children are among recreational shooters at special risk and they do not receive the same health protections as occupational users of firing ranges. Nearly all BLL measurements compiled in the reviewed studies exceed the current reference level of 5 μg/dL recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH). Thus firing ranges, regardless of type and user classification, currently constitute a significant and unmanaged public health problem. Prevention includes clothing changed after shooting, behavioural modifications such as banning of smoking and eating at firing ranges, improved ventilation systems and oversight of indoor ranges, and development of airflow systems at outdoor ranges. Eliminating lead dust risk at firing ranges requires primary prevention and using lead-free primers and lead-free bullets.

[-] bluelander@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

Getting more exposure from one place doesn't make getting less exposure from another not an issue worth investigating. Both things can be problems at the same time, especially when dealing with a substance for which the healthiest amount of exposure is zero. Lead anywhere is worth investigation and study.

I'm not about to give up shooting over it, but if I can easily make it safer for little effort then I see no reason not to. And I don't read anywhere in any of this that gun owners are being painted as idiots, it just seems like you're upset that people are taking a thing seriously that you don't personally take seriously.

And I agree. I would love to see data on lead on clothing at ranges and lead exposure for military recruits. That would be extremely valuable!

[-] Hobo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hey buddy! I have that link and many more further down. Here's a review by the NIH though that might help truncate some of the legwork:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5379568/

Feel free to bring in other sources though. I couldn't find any studies that show the negative but that's a little more tricky and not something most people are trying to study. Also there are like hundreds of other studies out there than seem to show a pretty strong correlation that are a quick search away!

[-] bluelander@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Yikes, those are some pretty high blood lead levels. And from what I understand that only shows recent exposure, not how much has already been internalized into your bones.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

Getting more exposure from one place doesn't make getting less exposure from another not an issue worth investigating. Both things can be problems at the same time, especially when dealing with a substance for which the healthiest amount of exposure is zero. Lead anywhere is worth investigation and study.

And I haven't said anywhere to not study this further, but to do a study like this is pointless, as it's terribly done.

I'm not about to give up shooting over it, but if I can easily make it safer for little effort then I see no reason not to.

Which should be normal, as I said elsewhere, you should be washing your hands anyways after shooting. It's just good hygiene in general.

And I don't read anywhere in any of this that gun owners are being painted as idiots, it just seems like you're upset that people are taking a thing seriously that you don't personally take seriously.

You should read the rest of this thread then. It's a bunch of people suggesting it. That what these shitty studies do, re-enforce anti-2a groups biases that gun owners are idiots...this just adds to it.

And I agree. I would love to see data on lead on clothing at ranges and lead exposure for military recruits. That would be extremely valuable!

That's where the data needs to come from. It'd be perfect for a study like this. Everyone is on basically the same economic level, they usually shoot around the same amounts, they live in the same areas as well.

So you're removing a ton of stuff that this study and the others failed to account for.

[-] bluelander@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

We'll have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of the study, I'm afraid. I think pointing out this kind of data is exactly the type of thing that will encourage other studies to dig deeper on a topic. It seems to make it easier for other groups to perform studies after a possible link has already been established since it saves them legwork.

I doubt any NRA endorsed ranges or the military would allow independent studies of this nature to be done. But it sure would be nice.

As far as anti-gun sentiment in the comments here: that's just Lemmy ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯