[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Live fire training comments period extended



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from Gary Stock <gstock@net-link.net>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Robert Isaac wrote:
> >
> > > If they are using the copper-jacketed lead bullets then they are
> > > contaminating the lakes with lead.
> >
> > That seems true to a meaningful extent.  Let's all be cautious about how
> > it's explained -- because any misleading data will undermine many strong
> > arguments against this practice.
> >
> >
> > An excellent example of misleading:
> >
> > > One bullet weighing 2.6 grams fully dissolved in 51,000 gallons
> > > of water results in a lead concentration of 15 parts per billion, the
> > > legal limit for drinking water."
> > >
> > > http://www.ewg.org/reports/poisonouspastime/leadpoll.pdf
> >
> >
> > Presume they're copper jacketed -- or not.  Presume generously that five
> > percent of rounds strike a solid object (shoreline or flotsam), and very
> > generously that ten percent break up on impact with the surface of the
> > water.
> >
> > What portion of the ammo will be "fully dissolved" on impact?  Perhaps
> > one percent of one percent?  one percent of that?  one percent of that?
> >
> > Otherwise, "fully dissolving" 2.6 grams of lead in 51,000 gallons of
> > water by natural causes -- such as wildlife ingestion, wave action or
> > other forms of physical abrasion, and leaching or other forms of
> > chemical dissolution -- would take... fifty thousand years?  nine
> > million?  two billion?
> 
> And how many fish are going to see these shiny things drifting down
> and eat them instinctively, entering the food chain in that manner?

One.  That is, generously rounding up from the more likely 0.3.

Drifting?  Drop a 15-gram lead slug in a deep pond where the visibility
is less than twenty or thirty feet.  The vertical descent you observe
near the surface may increase to some greater terminal velocity as it
descends into deeper water.  

Now, imagine that same slug had struck at a low arc between 1,500 and
2,000 feet per second.  Now, imagine any fish swimming _down_ that fast.

You're kidding, right?


> The argument presented above is not as misleading as you would have us
> believe because the copper-jacket does not remain intact upon striking
> anything, anyone that has ever fired a gun knows this.  

False.  I've fired many guns; that's _entirely_ irrelevant either way. 
Whether I'd fired one or not, I've retrieved spent rounds with intact
copper after striking wood, sand, metal sheeting, flesh, and other solid
objects.  As I said:

> > Presume generously that five
> > percent of rounds strike a solid object (shoreline or flotsam), and very
> > generously that ten percent break up on impact with the surface of the
> > water.


> Anyone that
> has fired a gun also knows that bullets can and do fragment on impact,


They "can" is _not_ they "do."  When law enforcement want an intact
round, they fire the weapon into water.  Now go back and read my
generous presumptions.


>  2.6 grams of lead particles could easily come from one gun during one
> firing session.  So what is misleading about it?  Please explain.

Fire a .22 slug into a bucket of water; that's about 2.6 grams of lead. 
Please let us know when it's all dissolved!

If you fire a 2.6-gram slug from a gun, 2.6 grams of lead come out. 
Something like 0.001 grams of lead particles come out.  That's the point.

It is patently false in the context of environmental contamination,
especially on an aquatic surface, to suggest that 2.6 grams of lead
particles could come from one gun.  The only conceivable way to achieve
such massive deposition would be with a gun firing thousands of
unjacketed rounds against concrete.  The barrel would melt before 2.6
grams of biologically available lead would come out.

Or, as I wondered, we can wait maybe a coupla million years.


Anyone who actually writes down a goofy insinuation like this:

> > > One bullet weighing 2.6 grams fully dissolved in 51,000 gallons
> > > of water results in a lead concentration of 15 parts per billion, the
> > > legal limit for drinking water."

...is _begging_ to be called an idiot -- and it'd be tough to defend them.

How many gallons in the Great Lakes?  Now do the math.  Equally goofy.

 
> > That, in turn, will be pushed back against the environmental community,
> > to suggest that only liars, nutcases, and freedom-haters want to stop
> > lead discharge.
> 
> You left out al Qaeda supporters, this is "homeland security" afterall. ;-)

Plus communists...

GS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Stock                                        gstock@unblinking.com
UnBlinking                                   http://www.unblinking.com/
Googlewhack                                 http://www.googlewhack.com/

==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================