This leads me to believe that there may be fact convolution going on with environmentalists. I’m not given to conspiracy theories but when it comes to the Al Gore camp; twisting the facts is their standard M.O. It’s unfortunate that those who possess common sense do not possess the resources that the fear mongers do. I may have to vote with GregGS on this one. Look at the boondoggle over scrap brass.

So, I guess all those people eating paint chips have a really high cancer rate. Typical tyranny of good intentions and more of the same from the statist and global meddlers.

how about “Look for the toxic in everything, and you will find it.”

Note to the copper industry: you’re next!

Sci Total Environ. 2009 Apr 1;407(8):2887-93. Epub 2009 Feb 13
Environmental fate of tungsten from military use.

Clausen JL, Korte N.

esearch and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, New Hampshire, 03755, USA.

This manuscript describes the distribution, fate and transport of tungsten used in training rounds at three small arms ranges at Camp Edwards on the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), USA. Practice with tungsten/nylon rounds began in 2000 subsequent to a 1997 US Environmental Protection Agency ban on training with lead. Training with the tungsten rounds was halted in 2005 because of concerns regarding tungsten’s environmental mobility and potential toxicity. This study, therefore, examines how tungsten partitions in the environment when fired on a small arms training range. Soil sampling revealed surface soil concentrations, highest at the berm face, up to 2080 mg/kg. Concentrations decreased rapidly with depth-at least by an order of magnitude by 25 cm. Nonetheless, tungsten concentrations remained above background to at least 150 cm. Pore-water samples from lysimeters installed in berm areas revealed a range of concentrations (<1-400 mg/L) elevated with respect to background although there was no discernable trend with depth. Groundwater monitoring well samples collected approximately 30 m below ground surface showed tungsten (0.001-0.56 mg/L) attributable to range use.

Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2009 May;72(4):1031-7. Epub 2009 Feb 20

Assessment of the environmental toxicity and carcinogenicity of tungsten-based shot.
Thomas VG, Roberts MJ, Harrison PT.

Department of Integrative Biology, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1. vthomas@uoguelph.ca

The toxicity of elemental tungsten released from discharged shot was assessed against previous studies that established a 1% toxic threshold for soil organisms. Extremely heavy theoretical shot loadings of 69,000shot/ha were used to generate estimated environmental concentrations (EEC) for two brands of tungsten-based shot containing 51% and 95% tungsten. The corresponding tungsten EEC values were 6.5-13.5mg W/kg soil, far below the 1% toxic threshold. The same shot loading in water produced tungsten EEC values of 2.1-4.4mg W/L, levels that are not toxic under experimental conditions. Pure tungsten has not been shown to exhibit carcinogenic properties when ingested or embedded in animal tissues, but nickel, with which it is often alloyed, has known carcinogenicity. Given the large number of waterfowl that carry shot embedded in their body, it is advisable to screen lead shot substitutes for their carcinogenic potential through intra-muscular implantation.

organisms need only very small amounts of metals – the absorption of large amounts of metals due to technical reasons is guaranteed to have some not-so-normal effects in an organism.

“carcinogenic” – well, almost everything seems to be carcinogenic nowadays. That doesn’t scare me at all. It needs to be mainstream carcinogenic like radiation to get my attention.
Did you know that fries can be carcinogenic if fried at too high temperatures? We had a major scare about several summer slumps ago.

I certainly am tired of hearing that everything that’s suitable for use in lethal projectiles may in fact be deadly. That’s the point! If you get cancer from shooting hundreds of thousands of bullets of a certain composition in a lifetime, consider it karma.

I’m gonna die of cancer because I choose to live free. I’d probably smoke to piss of hippies if it didn’t cost so damn much.

And most lead exposure came from the priming compound anyhow.

2. Kind of a “well duh”. Ingesting large quantities of any metal is probably a bad idea.

3. Similar to #2. Dumping large quantities of anything and letting it leech through the soil will jibber up the ground water. I propose we use bullets made out of Tang and Kool-Aid. OH YEA!

4. I expect it would be cheaper to simply treat high use military ranges as toxic sites and isolate them from the ground water. It uses known technology and is likely cheaper and safer than spending a lot on bullets made of something other than lead.