Originally Posted by GMFL
Funny. I won't go into "political leanings" but think a bit. A sunk sailboat in the ocean has what, 5,000 lbs of lead in it plus fuel, oil, plastic. etc. etc? While of course it's not planned to sink a sailboat in the middle of the ocean, it happens. As a sailor and a user of the ocean, maybe you should think about that and "properly" dispose of your boat before it happens to sink.
Then, and only then, feel free to come by and **** on my doorstep.
As a side note, what is the ecological effect of adding a few ounces of lead in the ocean? I don't know (as I suspect you don't either) but I'm guessing..... NOTHING!
Beej76 ĖI may not agree with what you want to do but you have been reasonable and not tried to justify it by comparison with sinking boats. Sorry if I divert your thread but I canít ignore this.
GMFL - Oh dear, you have picked the wrong person.
First, let me say that I have no position or interest in the argument about the right to bear arms or gun control, etc., etc. I really, really donít care. What I do have an interest in is the amount of neurotoxin that is released into the environment, that I and everyone else is forced to live with. And within that topic, todayís subject is pollution caused by unregulated, poorly controlled and reckless use of the guns that people do own.
Weíll get to the ďfew ouncesĒ of lead our OP wants to discharge, in a minute. But, as with all widely dispersed pollution sources, itís not the small amount that one person pollutes, itís the cumulative effect of everyoneís pollution.
The U.S. produces about five billion rounds of small arms ammunition each year. That is between 50 and 100 million pounds of lead. Some is exported, some is hoarded but the vast majority of it ends up in the environment. And that doesnít even include the worst polluter per round, the good old 12-gauge cartridge.
But lets not stop there; Letís say that those estimates are wildly exaggerated. What do you want to say? How about a ninety percent exaggeration and just to be sure, lets base that 90% exaggeration on the lower figure. Thatís still 5 million pounds of lead. Do you really think that the loss of a handful of sailboats each year introduces more pollution? Your argument is a classic case of do what the hell you want and then try twist things to justify it. Or maybe you just wanted to attack me because I donít agree with your preconceived ideas.
Do I know the effect of a few ounces of lead? Actually I do. Letís take a couple of examples. ONE 2.2 caliber cartridge contains 2.6 grams of lead. That is enough lead to raise the lead level of 50,000 gallon of water above 15 parts per billion. Thatís the EPA limit for drinking water that many scientists believe should be lowered anyway. How about ONE 12 gauge cartridge - that could do the same thing to the drinking water for the entire city of Houston. Yeah! Lead is bad stuff.
How about the U.S. national bird, the bald eagle. Itís in very serious trouble. Want to know why? Primarily, lead poisoning. In one study, more than half the bald eagles tested had potentially fatal levels of lead poisoning. Also, over half the injured bald eagles taken to Iowa rehabilitation centers had lead shrapnel in their digestive tracts. Where do you suppose that came from? Oh yeah, must be my keel.
Even by the most conservative estimates, the 1800 or so outdoor firing ranges in the U.S. introduce more lead into the environment than almost any other industry (metals mining might be the worst). Any business that releases more than 100 pounds of lead a year is required to report that Ė except firing ranges which are exempt. Firing ranges can be sited next to sensitive areas where the lead leaches into ground water, rivers, etc. and there is no regulation or control. Firing ranges can be sited next to schools where lead dust drifts across the schoolyard and there is no regulation or control. And thatís just the legal, responsible shooters. What about those that shoot bottles off of posts? And the small but significant number of duck hunters that still use lead shot because it works better. And who hasnít driven past a rural road sign full of holes?
Another fact? There is no safe level of lead for children. Iíd like you to see the neurological damage that lead can do to a child. You know what Ė letís not even go there or Iíll get really pissed off.
So I have a Lame Argument?? Maybe you should take your Large Member (talk about lame) and legal right to discharge lead over to a gun forum and stop polluting the waters. If you want to engage in a discussion about pollution, lets take it to Of Topic but unless you have a reasoned argument, stop wasting my time.
Anyone who wants to shoot and reduce the effect on the environment, you can look into copper bullets and steel shot. Not perfect but better than lead. Of course they are more expensive so nobody uses them unless required to Ėsuch is life.
And just for the record, abandoned boats do present a significant pollution hazard in some areas. Thatís abandoned boats, not the few accidental sinkings. And there are areas of boats ownership that we should be concerned about. But donít try to tell me I pollute more by going sailing than someone who discharges lead into the environment.
For those of you that think Iím wrong Ė keep licking the bullets.
In case itís of interest, here are some examples of lead content:
12 gauge shotgun shell Ė 28 grams, 22 caliber rifle Ė 2.6 grams, 9 mm Ė 7.5 grams, 45 caliber Ė 12.0 grams, 30-30 Winchester Ė 8.1 grams, 308 Winchester Ė 9.7 grams.