No Lead "Green Ammo"

[Tharg]

heh - you keep forgetting ... we were surviving cause we mated a lot more....


Marriage is a concept born when the avg person didn't live to be 35 yrs old... <rofl> one of my favorite quotes.

We are living longer and are healthier later into those years because of all sorts of things that came down the pipe. An article i read in polular science i think (that or pop. Mechanics) talked about how we used to sell radioactive water to fix all sorts of things... apparently the water didn't keep the radiation much past getting bottled (short half/life) so a contraption was invented to keep the properties which worked all too well and people died from it because no one knew about the real effects of radiation. Course - Coke prolly still had coke in it then too =) heh. (if coke(the drink) was around then...)

Apparently the FDA was created right around that time and thats where that came from =)

Lead was mined from the ground - this is true. Its also true that if the lead had created a problem in the water - it probably wouldn't have kept a healthy population around it for long and thus wouldn't be populated. There are a lot of things in the ground that have been there for ever... but as someone said previously - redistributing it could be harmful, since where it was wasn't (likely) effecting anyone/thing, putting it in a different place can be an entirely different thing. Natural does NOT mean harmless.

J/Tharg!

 

[TheEgg]

I found this comment from the article totally laughable:

“This is one of the most significant advances in police training I’ve seen in my 20-plus-year career,†said Mark Fritts, a senior firearms instructor at the center.

It may turn out that "green" ammo is a good thing, but if this is one of the most significant advances in police training in 20 years, we need to get the police up to speed on a few other topics.

 

[Penforhire]

One fussy note.

Guys, when I wrote Polonium I meant Polonium, not Plutonium. You'll find it in the same column as Oxygen in the Periodic Table. So you can drop the (sic) in your quotes. Polonium was commonly used as a radioactive source in Beta Backscatter instruments (commonly used to measure plating thicknesses before X-ray fluorescence got cheaper). You are much more likely to come in contact with Po than Pu. And these radioactives have toxity beyond radiation damage, so don't handle of lick those bars either.

 

[hso]

Lets clear up some misinformation on lead.

http://www.rangeinfo.org/resource_library/facility_mngmnt/environment/lead_and_environ.htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts13.html
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0368.html
http://www.epa.gov/lead/index.html


Lead is hazardous when inhaled and ingested. It is hazardous in metalic dust and soluble "salts" forms. Exposure limits have been set by US, Eu and non-gov organisations. PEL: TWA 0.050 mg/m3, REL: TWA 0.050 mg/m3, TLV: 0.05 mg/m³

Lead sulfide (galena), lead carbonate (cerusite) and lead sulfate (anglesite) are the primary naturally occuring ore material, not metallic lead.

Lead from ranges can and does leach into groundwater and it does poison folks who ingest it.

Personnel that work in indoor ranges show elevated blood lead levels.

For further reading (some of this is a little extreme by my professional standards, but the majority of it is good) -

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Research/files/lead_range.pdf
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ohb/OLPPP/pntblnk1.htm
http://www.chm.msu.edu/oem/Lead/ShootersGuide-MSU.pdf
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/lead/shoot.htm
http://www.pinellashealth.com/familyhealth/Lead/firingrangepublic.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/renew/rangewaste...et.com/government/PolicePubs/IB/IB-1Apr99.pdf
http://www.cciservices.com/webdocs/firingRangeChecklist.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/03462572.html
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000142.htm
http://www.rangetech.com/site/tube2.html
http://www.nsc.org/pubs/sh/clip1299.htm#B

Sticking your head in the sand about hazardous materials is no more effective than doing so about self defense or RKBA.

 

[sumpnz]

Penforhire - Appologies. I thought it was a typo. My bad.

 

[444]

We used frangible ammo in my Gunsite 556, Advanced Carbine class. I fired about 100 rounds of it and still have some left. We used it in the indoor simulators, I assume to prevent damage to the facility and to prevent any danger of richochet/splatter caused by shooting steel targets at close range with a rifle.
It functioned fine from my AR15.
Point of impact was plenty close enough for the ranges we were shooting.

If I am not mistaken, some of this frangible ammo is made from compressed corn or something like that. It hits a steel target and disintegrates. I don't think the stuff I have would have any application for defense or hunting.

P.S.: It was FAR more expensive than ball ammo.

 

[jefnvk]

Anyone have any idea of how many bullets 76 gov't agencies shoots in a year? I am not buying the argument that a 3 cents a bullet raise is a 'small price' to pay.

 

[hso]

Compared to testing and cleanup costs it may actually save money for an indoor training facility.

Let's look at a model for a training facility.

$0.03/rnd additional cost for non-lead ammo

500 rnds/trainee (Doubtful that PDs let LEOs shoot this much, but making an average WAG for SWAT and combat cops)

means that it add $15/trainee to use non-lead ammo

If the traning facility processes 1,000 trainee/yr (again a WAG)

It means that a training facility that trains 1,000 employees a year sees a $15,000/yr cost differential between "green" and lead ammo.

The cost to run a lead program to such a range, including testing, cleanup, filtration, ventilation, will be $15,000 or more a year.

$15,000 + additional to use lead ammunition vs $15,000 additional to not use lead.

Looks like it costs less to not use lead ammo and you don't have the lead hazards.

 

[JohnKSa]

Sticking your head in the sand about hazardous materials is no more effective than doing so about self defense or RKBA.

No one's saying lead is safe. No one's saying that shooting can't lead to high lead levels.

Grubbing around in a range that's full of metallic lead dust is not good for you, but the primary reason that indoor range workers have high lead levels is from inhaling the primer residue which contains lead from the lead styphnate, NOT from cleaning up the metallic lead debris.

Metallic lead isn't good for you, but there's hazardous and then there's hazardous. If you have a lead problem it's almost a sure thing that you got it from inhaling primer smoke, or from inhaling lead vapor from casting bullets--NOT from simple exposure to metallic lead or even lead dust.

Kids are another story--but you don't find many adults eating dirt or grubbing around in the dirt and then licking their fingers.

I'm not suggesting people be cavalier--read my responses on the indoor basement range thread if that's what you think. But it seems that there is no middle ground anymore. These days it seems that something is either totally safe to eat in large quantities, roll around in and inhale, or it's a deadly poison! The fact is there are not that many deadly poisons out there--but there are a LOT of things that one should not ingest. Let's not pretend that there's nothing in between.

 

[cracked butt]

Not to mention that there are a whole lot of people out there that work with lead such as plumbers, hobbyists, and lead smelter workers that don't have problems with lead poisoning- Like JohnSKA above said- its the primer residues that are toxic.

Also think of all of the generations of fishermen who have used their teeth to tighten pure lead splitshots on their lines not to mention having tackleboxes full of lead jigs and sinkers, and who has ever heard of a fisherman getting lead poisoning?

$0.03/rnd additional cost for non-lead ammo

Most of my shooting is with bullets that cost me that much or less, as I make my own from scrap lead. My hunting bullets cost about $0.20-0.25 a piece, I'll be darned if I'm going to pay another $.03 per bullet that doesn't perform nearly as well.

To wit, lead shot has been banned for waterfowling for over 20 years for good reason- waterfowl were dying because they were injesting lead shot that was in the mud. Its replacement, steel, is a very poor replacement as far as performance goes- the shots must be taken much closer, and its nearly useless for pass shooting Canada geese, not to mention steel shot loads always cost at least twice as much as lead. Its taken a long time to find a suitable replacement, and some have been found, but you are paying $2 per shell to shoot the stuff.

Until they find an animal that is dying off in droves from burrowing into berms at shooting ranges and eating the lead pills, or there are wide range cases of elevated lead levels in water and in people from such sources, I'll stand by my assertion that 'Green Ammo' is like everything else proposed by 'Green People'- marxism cloaked in a shroud of environmentalism.

 

[JohnKSa]

To wit, lead shot has been banned for waterfowling for over 20 years for good reason- waterfowl were dying because they were injesting lead shot that was in the mud.

c-b,
As far as I know, the ban was enacted because it was ASSUMED that ingesting lead shot was harming waterfowl. I am not aware of any studies having been performed--not to show that waterfowl were being harmed, nor to show that waterfowl were ingesting lead shot in the first place. It was an anti-hunting law, plain and simple.

 

[cracked butt]

John- You are probably right, I've never heard any figures on how many waterfowl died of lead poisoning. The changeover to non-toxic shot occurred about the same time I started waterfowl hunting, so I don't know the specifics of it.

If ducks were dying of lead poisoning, I would bet that even more were wounded and not recovered because of steel shot.

It was an anti-hunting law, plain and simple.

That I don't doubt- it put the cost of waterfowling out of the hands of alot of people, not to mention the frustration of being forced to shoot substandard ammunition.

 

[13A]

Tungsten not a good choice for military.

Unfortunately, we have to rely on foreign sources for tungsten. The following articles may cause some to put on their tin foil hats, but are worth reading:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14942

http://shop.alienzoo.com/conspiracytheory/disarmamentofamerica.html

 

[sumpnz]

WRT to the issue of lead poisoning in waterfowl I believe the issue wasn't so much the ducks and such getting lead poisoning but their predators getting lead poisoning. The waterfowl typically don't pick up enough lead individually to cause that much of a problem. But the hawks, falcons, etc that eat the waterfowl were starting to have a lot of problems with lead poisoning from the cumulative exposure from eating a lot of prey with low lead levels. I volunteered at a raptor rehab clinic for a summer in college and the lady that ran that place told of a number of raptors that she had to do chelation therapy on due to lead poisoning. It was not at epidemic levels, but I believe the powers that be wanted to keep it from getting to that point.

 

[JohnKSa]

sumpnz,

I'm about 99% sure that the law was "justified" on the basis of being a benefit to waterfowl health. I'm glad that there is actually some benefit to the law, but nothing I've ever head indicates that raptors were considered in the original intent.

 

[hso]

The old phrase in industrial hygiene is, "The dose makes the poison". As you know this means that a material may be poisonous at one concentration but will not be at some lower concentration. WRT lead that level is the PEL/TLV/REL, an average concentration of 0.05 miligrams (50 micrograms) in a cubic meter of air breathed for an 8 hour day. Exposed to just under twice that for half the day (4 hrs) day in and day out, or under 4 times for 2 hrs, or ... you get the idea, and the vast majority of the adult population will not suffer any adverse effects. So, Yes, there are safe levels of airborne lead that you can be exposed to and millions of people are exposed to non-hazardous lead concentrations every day. This means that you can safely work with lead, even respirable or absorbable forms. To do this you have to understand how exposure occurs and what forms can result in exposure to prevent being harmed.

What forms of lead should be handled with caution? Lead sulfide is pretty difficult to absorb, but almost all organic and most inorganic forms are absorbed by the human body. Even fume from heating/burning lead metal. Here's an bit from the University of Illinois - http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...0lead.pdf+lead+fume+definition&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Jack Dempsey, Executive Director, Facilities & Services
Sylvia Delgado, Director, Division of Safety & Compliance
1501 South Oak Street * Physical Plant Service Building * Champaign, IL 61820
www.fs.uiuc.edu
Lead
Pure lead is a heavy metal at room temperature and pressure and is a basic chemical element. It can combine with various other substances to form numerous lead compounds.
Exposure to lead can occur in a variety of ways, including melting pure lead to use in glazing,
molding, soldering, removal or encapsulation of lead or lead containing products (i.e. paint). This can include the alteration, repair or removal of structures that contain lead.
Lead can be absorbed into your body by inhalation (breathing lead dust or fumes) and ingestion. Lead (except for some organic lead compounds) is not absorbed through the skin. When lead is scattered in the air as a dust, fume, or mist it can be inhaled and absorbed through your lungs and upper respiratory tract. Inhalation of airborne lead is generally the most important source of occupational lead absorption. You can absorb lead through your digestive system if lead gets into your mouth and is swallowed. If you handle food, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, or make-up which have lead on them or handle them with hands contaminated with lead, this will contribute to ingestion. A significant portion of the lead that you inhale or ingest gets into your bloodstream. "

Smelting operations (melting/pouring metallic lead), lead paint removal, and any operation where lead can become a problem have to set up controls and sample the air to insure that workers don't become exposed. If air lead levels are below a certain concentration below the PEL the company only has to check the air when they change the way they work. If the controls they establish can't keep the lead below the "no worries" level, but still below the PEL, they have to check the air frequently and check the employees blood lead concentrations to make sure. If they exceed the PEL they have to provide protective equipment to the employee and keep the bloodwork up to verify the PPE is working.

Does this mean that lead from firing ranges can be hazardous? Instead of repeating myself read the literature out there and you decide. Does it mean that an hour at the range is going to harm you? Heck no! You won't get enough lead exposure even in an indoor range with no ventilation to hurt you. A day at the same range? Well that depends upon how many other folks were putting lead in the air. Even if the concentration were above the PEL would it hurt you if you did that a couple of times a month? Probably not, because your body flushs some of the lead you absorb out with what you "excrete". So if a couple days of exposure in a month can be handled then there's not much of a problem for shooters, but if you let it build up on surfaces and in the air and you don't keep it out of your mouth as well as your lungs you could start to accumulate enough lead in your body and replinish it faster than you excrete. Eventually the "camel" starts to feel the weight of all those little lead "straws".

Should this keep me, or you, out of the range and the gunshop? No. Do I wash up there before putting anything in my mouth or leaving? Yes.

Now all this isn't just theoretical because I've monitored indoor ranges and measured the amount of lead in the air both in the range and offices/classrooms/shop as well as the lead accumulated on the surfaces and found average concentrations exceeding the PEL in the range. Because the employees aren't on the range the whole day they don't get a PEL exposure though. Do they get any exposure? Well, yes. Do they get enough to be concerned about? A couple of them do.

Here are the particulars on one range that I'm directly familiar with -

The worker that cleans the range and the trap has elevated blood lead levels. He doesn't shoot (odd though that may seem for someone working at a range) and doesn't spend more than 10-15 minutes on the range when shooting is going on. The levels are not "through the roof" but they are 4 times the "average" for most folks.

The manager that operates the range has elevated blood lead levels. He shoots, but less than a day a week and then for no more than 2 hours. He does have the habit of licking his fingers when counting or handling paper. His levels are nearly 5 times the average.

Other employees that are non-shooters have elevated blood lead levels as well as shooting employees. All, but one of these employees have elevated lead levels and the guy with the low blood lead level is a shooter, but not frequently.

None of them have blood lead levels high enough to trigger OSHA required actions, but a couple are getting close.

All the employee elevated blood lead might be explained by fume from shooting except the person that cleans the trap and the admin, where there is no primer fume to be exposed to (the admin is married to the manager and I'd prefer not to guess where that exposure comes from).

So yes you can get exposures if you're at a range day in day out whether you're sucking fumes at the firing line or cleaning the traps, but you can manage them.

Check rangeinfo.org, a shooting range industry group, for good info. Their reference library section contains lead information in the environmental management subsection.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10642

http://www.rangeinfo.org/resource_library/facility_mngmnt/design/using_risk_assesment.htm

http://www.safetyline.wa.gov.au/pagebin/pg000095.htm

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/lead.html

 

[MP5]

hso, thanks for the factual, informed post.

 

[hso]

Mp5, et al,

You're welcome.

I encourage anyone that has more information on range lead to share it.

MIke

 

[Doc]

hso:

now where was that calm, reasoned opinion to support me when
i needed it

doc

east TN?? like Oak Ridge, TN??

doc

 

[hso]

Doc,

Well I don't need a night light to go potty at night! So, yeah, work's in OR (and PGDP, and Mound, and Brookhaven, and INEL, ...).

 

[MP5]

hso, has the worker who cleans that range considered wearing a respirator while doing his job? Seems like that would be an easy way to keep his levels down.

 

[cracked butt]

HSO- What you wrote about range workers getting high exposures makes sense. On the other hand, if they are being actively tested of rlead levels in they blood and are coming up on the high side yet continue to not adequately protect themselves, what are they thinking??

I work at a production facility that makes steroids, cancer drugs, and high potency narcotics, most of which are at least an order of magnitude more toxic than lead. Some of the dosages are a few micrograms and will absorb directly through the skin. We are tested on a regular basis for exposure levels and noone to date has had detectable levels or toxic effects. We are all well versed in good chemical hygeine habits and wear appropriate equipment.

In light of what you posted, 'green ammo' might make sense if a range operator wants to make it mandatory on his/her range in order to protect himself and his employees, but it makes no sense to madate it in indoor ranges if the operators choose to allow it and take special precautions while working in the environment, and makes even less sense to mandate 'green ammo' on outdoor ranges.

 

[Penforhire]

My guess is some of the elevated lead-in-blood results are from smokers. If they don't wash their hands thoroughly, solid traces get burned and inhaled. I get blood tested annually for lead too (thick film electronics commonly use leaded glass as a sintering aid) and I've had zero increase despite working around lead fumes. Engineering controls (e.g. exhaust) make a difference.

 

[hso]

CB -
Not everyone does what they're supposed to do even when it is in their best interest (said the fat little man with the bad knees and high blood pressure).

Reasons given to not wear a respirator are "They're uncomfortable, they're hot, they're hard to breath through, I don't like them". This in the face of elevated blood data.

Now if the blood/air levels are below the mandated limits for action (regardless of how close to the wire they are) you can't make people wear PPE. Matter of fact, you can't make people wear PPE at all sometimes and many times if you do force them you can't get them to wear it properly! Some folks just don't consider any short term discomfort acceptable to protect their long term health.


As to whether green ammo makes sense for outdoor ranges - In addition to the environmental management/facility management section of rangeinfo.org our senior environmental complinace guy, one of the weekend shooters at my house (anybody looking to give away a ruger Vaquero in 44Mag should let me know), gave this to me - http://www.itrcweb.org/SMART-1.pdf

A few thousand rounds don't make much of a contribution to local grounwater contamination. A few hundred thousand makes very little more, but a few million, well that starts to add up. Each round makes a trivial contribution, but millions start to add up (anyone who's ever had a drink or two can relate to the difference between a sip of whiskey and a whole bottle). And that whole bottle consumed at home when you're not going to be out and a threat to anyone else isn't that big a deal (not a moral judgement here just a lame illustration). But too much in the wrong place is the problem. Are the large bullet fragments a problem, not much. They lack the surface to volume ratio to put much lead into the environment. It's the fine particles that are more readily solublized that migrate lead to groundwater. Those and the primer materials.

Would removing lead and mercury primer constituents make the biggest difference? I think so, but I haven't found any studies on it. Considering a little acid rain (sulfuric acid) converts lead to lead sulfide and mercury to mercury sulfide nicely those of us getting the midwest's sulfur fallout see the insoluble sulfides form. It's the stuff that is already in soluble salts that may be the bad actor.

 

[cracked butt]

Now if the blood/air levels are below the mandated limits for action (regardless of how close to the wire they are) you can't make people wear PPE. Matter of fact, you can't make people wear PPE at all sometimes and many times if you do force them you can't get them to wear it properly! Some folks just don't consider any short term discomfort acceptable to protect their long term health.

Sure you can, its a matter if you want to or not. I supervise a production crew and can and do tell people to wear PPE in certain situations that they might not think is 100% appropriate or in situations where they did not understand the full extent of the dangers of the operations. If they don't, they'll be fired for insubordination.

As far as lead gertting into water, its the last thing I would worry about. I've never heard of high lead levels in water, but have heard of high mercury levels from coal fired electrical plants, high PCB levels, and where I live, ,very high radium levels. I don't think an outdoor shooting range, by its very design would emit much solublized lead into the environments, and the area that the lead is contained in, is usually very small and the lead is contained in steeply sloped embankments- most of the water is going to run off ratehr than perculate through. Trap and skeet ranges are an entirely different matter with lead shot being scattered over a large area, but these have been around for generations and if ther were any indications of elevated lead levels around trap fields, I would think it would be common knowledge by now.