"Science is clear," says James Birkelund of the Natural Resources Defense Council in the Los Angeles Times' latest editorial hit piece masquerading as hard news. "You need to phase out lead ammunition quickly or the only condors left in California will be stamped on the back of our new quarters."
Sounds serious. Sounds urgent. And, as per the MO of the social engineers at The Times, it sounds hysterical.
"Natural Resources Defense Council"? That sure sounds official, like they might actually rely on hard science instead of being a hobby for environmentalcase dilletantes like some who sit on their Board of Trustees, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Redford and James Taylor--fine entertainers all, but hardly authorities competent to establish environmental regulations.
If we relied solely on the solons of the NRDC and the trusty public watchdogs at The Times, we'd never suspect that all might not be as they paint it.
For instance, we'd never know about "Two studies done at Virginia Tech [that] showed very little lead damage to the environment from bullets left on battlefields or on a carefully designed shotgun/rifle range."
We'd never know about Professor Donald Rimstidt, from the Department of Geosciences, College of Science at Virginia Tech, who reports " "Lead metal is unstable when it is in contact with air and water. It corrodes and forms hydrocerrussite, the white coating seen on old bullets in museums. That slows corrosion. However some lead escapes, but we learned that it is absorbed in the top few inches of soil and does not migrate beyond that. Lead is not very mobile. It does not wash away in surface or ground water."
We'd never hear about Fisheries and Wildlife professor Pat Scanlon, who before his death, Rimstidt reports,"found no evidence that birds were eating shot."
The alleged lead hazard is more hype and hysteria than anything else. The goal, of course, is to interfere with our ability to buy and use ammunition, as well as being part of a larger agenda.
Just remember that environmentalcase junk “science” was also used to ban DDT--and the result has been a politically-manufactured genocide in Third World nations from malaria.
Sounds serious. Sounds urgent. And, as per the MO of the social engineers at The Times, it sounds hysterical.
"Natural Resources Defense Council"? That sure sounds official, like they might actually rely on hard science instead of being a hobby for environmentalcase dilletantes like some who sit on their Board of Trustees, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Redford and James Taylor--fine entertainers all, but hardly authorities competent to establish environmental regulations.
If we relied solely on the solons of the NRDC and the trusty public watchdogs at The Times, we'd never suspect that all might not be as they paint it.
For instance, we'd never know about "Two studies done at Virginia Tech [that] showed very little lead damage to the environment from bullets left on battlefields or on a carefully designed shotgun/rifle range."
We'd never know about Professor Donald Rimstidt, from the Department of Geosciences, College of Science at Virginia Tech, who reports " "Lead metal is unstable when it is in contact with air and water. It corrodes and forms hydrocerrussite, the white coating seen on old bullets in museums. That slows corrosion. However some lead escapes, but we learned that it is absorbed in the top few inches of soil and does not migrate beyond that. Lead is not very mobile. It does not wash away in surface or ground water."
We'd never hear about Fisheries and Wildlife professor Pat Scanlon, who before his death, Rimstidt reports,"found no evidence that birds were eating shot."
The alleged lead hazard is more hype and hysteria than anything else. The goal, of course, is to interfere with our ability to buy and use ammunition, as well as being part of a larger agenda.
Just remember that environmentalcase junk “science” was also used to ban DDT--and the result has been a politically-manufactured genocide in Third World nations from malaria.