4 ms·

Lead poisoning is a major threat at America’s shooting ranges

17 points by jwess 12y ago

justignore 12y ago
Took a second to realize that the headline wasn't a joke.
Pinckney 12y ago
Interesting article. Ventilation is one of several reasons I strongly prefer shooting at outdoor ranges.
wycx 12y ago
Anyone know in what form lead occurs in the residue/vapour at gun ranges? Is it all native Pb, or are other more soluble compounds formed during firing?
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  There is lead styphnate in primers though I think there are lead-free ones now.
sixbrx 12y ago
INDOOR ranges, to be clear. I don't know how people can stand shooting in them because of the increased percussion, regardless of lead poisoning.
- afarrell 12y ago
  In Cambridge, MA, I'm pretty sure the only range within any reasonable travel time is an indoor one.
- hga 12y ago
  If you're at all interested in self-defense, getting used to the percussion, albeit with hearing protectors, is a very good idea, since you might have to use a gun inside a building. (There are earmuffs that'll receive, or even amplify outside noise except of course for gun shots. They're very useful for instruction.)
hga 12y ago
Just skimmed it (about to go to bed), but I'm not impressed: For starters, as others have noted, the danger is from the lead styphnate in primers when used in indoor ranges. They ought to have made that clear ... especially since there's an obvious solution which is good for ranges (we don't entirely trust lead free primers yet, but unless one causes a squib misfire that lodges a bullet in the barrel, it's not a serious problem). They invoke the eeeeevil NRA ... which is the organization of gun owners. Not a word about the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the organization for the gun industry, including ranges. Don't know if they went into it for real, but this danger has been generally recognized for as long as 3 decades. The NRA has certainly been telling its members about it. Just like we're told not to eat or smoke while reloading. Of course, there's more than one compelling reason to not smoke while reloading ^_^.
- astrodust 12y ago
  Inspecting barely a fraction of the facilities and having very limited power to prosecute the most flagrant violators is the take-away from this. You're obviously reading something into this. I didn't get a "guns are bad, NRA is evil" vibe at all. Instead I read about how people in this industry, customers and employees have little to no protection from potentially hazardous environments and perhaps no idea how severely contaminated some of these ranges are. It would seem that if one of these ranges had an elevator in it, the elevator would be inspected far more frequently than the range itself would be. Maybe you've been informed about the potential risks of an indoor range, but it seems that those risks are severely compounded when an operator flagrantly ignores any reasonable safety standards like filtering recirculating air.
  - hga 12y ago
    The bias is there, or at least the normal gross ignorance of the MSM, in e.g. talking about the NRA but not the NSSF; the latter is inexcusable sloppiness. Or trying to confound the dangers of indoor and outdoor ranges. Or, heck, is there the slightest evidence they talked to anyone on my side about how we view this? For that matter, the MSM's Der Stürmer approach towards the NRA and gunowners suppresses membership in the former and therefore the education the latter might otherwise get from reading the member magazines. Perhaps I'm oversensitive, but being part of this fight since the early 1970s (sic) bias from the MSM is assumed and the tropes are trivial to detect. Counterwise, not genuinely biased reporters and editors are so marinated in gun grabbing bias---as you are unless you read a lot from other sources to counter it, even if you're an active gunowner, even a NRA member (or so surveys tell us about the latter)---they'll automatically use them even if they weren't really meaning to be biased. Perhaps a style vs. substance problem, since the problem is real ... but, again, the dismissive attitude towards the NRA and the blackout on the NSSF shows the limits of their research, and at some point "they're the generically clueless MSM" excuse doesn't cut it. Did the article give any examples of customers being harmed? In these situations, it's almost always an occupational danger, since owners, employees and volunteers get massively longer exposures, and are also responsible for cleaning the place, which can also expose them to lead fragments at the end of the range. I think nowadays almost all centerfire bullets are jacketed, but ubiquitous and inexpensive (until very recently) .22 LR rimfire aren't jacketed, or not seriously. Probably less of a threa I also wonder why OSHA and the state OSHAs aren't on the ball. The usual suspects on my side, the NRA and NSSF, are very serious about this (the exit of the very nice NRA's HQ range in Virginia has two hand washing stations you can't miss and as mentioned publicity of the dangers, and see https://www.google.com/search?q=nssf+range+lead https://www.google.com/search?q=nssf+range+lead), they publicize the dangers, the NSSF helps ranges ... the OSHAs could be more heavy handed if they wanted to be, as long as it was clear to these orgs they weren't just trying to shut down ranges. And there's funding to be had for ranges (add "fund" or "funding" to the prior search).

17 points by jwess 12y ago

justignore 12y ago

Took a second to realize that the headline wasn't a joke.

Pinckney 12y ago

Interesting article. Ventilation is one of several reasons I strongly prefer shooting at outdoor ranges.

wycx 12y ago

Anyone know in what form lead occurs in the residue/vapour at gun ranges? Is it all native Pb, or are other more soluble compounds formed during firing?

chrisbennet 12y ago
There is lead styphnate in primers though I think there are lead-free ones now.

sixbrx 12y ago

INDOOR ranges, to be clear. I don't know how people can stand shooting in them because of the increased percussion, regardless of lead poisoning.

afarrell 12y ago
In Cambridge, MA, I'm pretty sure the only range within any reasonable travel time is an indoor one.
hga 12y ago
If you're at all interested in self-defense, getting used to the percussion, albeit with hearing protectors, is a very good idea, since you might have to use a gun inside a building. (There are earmuffs that'll receive, or even amplify outside noise except of course for gun shots. They're very useful for instruction.)

hga 12y ago

Just skimmed it (about to go to bed), but I'm not impressed: For starters, as others have noted, the danger is from the lead styphnate in primers when used in indoor ranges. They ought to have made that clear ... especially since there's an obvious solution which is good for ranges (we don't entirely trust lead free primers yet, but unless one causes a squib misfire that lodges a bullet in the barrel, it's not a serious problem). They invoke the eeeeevil NRA ... which is the organization of gun owners. Not a word about the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the organization for the gun industry, including ranges. Don't know if they went into it for real, but this danger has been generally recognized for as long as 3 decades. The NRA has certainly been telling its members about it. Just like we're told not to eat or smoke while reloading. Of course, there's more than one compelling reason to not smoke while reloading ^_^.

astrodust 12y ago
Inspecting barely a fraction of the facilities and having very limited power to prosecute the most flagrant violators is the take-away from this. You're obviously reading something into this. I didn't get a "guns are bad, NRA is evil" vibe at all. Instead I read about how people in this industry, customers and employees have little to no protection from potentially hazardous environments and perhaps no idea how severely contaminated some of these ranges are. It would seem that if one of these ranges had an elevator in it, the elevator would be inspected far more frequently than the range itself would be. Maybe you've been informed about the potential risks of an indoor range, but it seems that those risks are severely compounded when an operator flagrantly ignores any reasonable safety standards like filtering recirculating air.
- hga 12y ago
  The bias is there, or at least the normal gross ignorance of the MSM, in e.g. talking about the NRA but not the NSSF; the latter is inexcusable sloppiness. Or trying to confound the dangers of indoor and outdoor ranges. Or, heck, is there the slightest evidence they talked to anyone on my side about how we view this? For that matter, the MSM's Der Stürmer approach towards the NRA and gunowners suppresses membership in the former and therefore the education the latter might otherwise get from reading the member magazines. Perhaps I'm oversensitive, but being part of this fight since the early 1970s (sic) bias from the MSM is assumed and the tropes are trivial to detect. Counterwise, not genuinely biased reporters and editors are so marinated in gun grabbing bias---as you are unless you read a lot from other sources to counter it, even if you're an active gunowner, even a NRA member (or so surveys tell us about the latter)---they'll automatically use them even if they weren't really meaning to be biased. Perhaps a style vs. substance problem, since the problem is real ... but, again, the dismissive attitude towards the NRA and the blackout on the NSSF shows the limits of their research, and at some point "they're the generically clueless MSM" excuse doesn't cut it. Did the article give any examples of customers being harmed? In these situations, it's almost always an occupational danger, since owners, employees and volunteers get massively longer exposures, and are also responsible for cleaning the place, which can also expose them to lead fragments at the end of the range. I think nowadays almost all centerfire bullets are jacketed, but ubiquitous and inexpensive (until very recently) .22 LR rimfire aren't jacketed, or not seriously. Probably less of a threa I also wonder why OSHA and the state OSHAs aren't on the ball. The usual suspects on my side, the NRA and NSSF, are very serious about this (the exit of the very nice NRA's HQ range in Virginia has two hand washing stations you can't miss and as mentioned publicity of the dangers, and see https://www.google.com/search?q=nssf+range+lead https://www.google.com/search?q=nssf+range+lead), they publicize the dangers, the NSSF helps ranges ... the OSHAs could be more heavy handed if they wanted to be, as long as it was clear to these orgs they weren't just trying to shut down ranges. And there's funding to be had for ranges (add "fund" or "funding" to the prior search).