Finally, a small victory for hunters.

[Variable]

And while I agree that this is not junk science, I would say that it appears to be a result of people with an answer out looking for the question. It appears that there is a desire to link lead to the endangerment of these birds. Although I have not read the body of literature cited by the one referenced by CBronson ( I will), I did not see any reference to what is a toxic level for these birds. And although the samples showed wide variation in levels, with 4 out of 150 seeming to be really high, we must remember that these feathers were taken from living, healthy birds. Not dead birds from obvious lead poisoning, or sickly birds in a condor rescue. So I do think this paper is trying hard to make a case that the authors have already decided.

This.

Cherry picking puffery in search of grants while bolstering an agenda to boot.

Hummm, what do I want to prove today? How about: water causes cancer?

Lets see...

1.) Some people die of cancer.

2.) Those people consumed water at some point in their life.

3.) There is obviously a Corrolary here-- hence water is carcinogenic.

4.) Lets ban water.


Junk science: They arrive at their conclusion at the outset. Then they sift through massive piles of data looking for even the tiniest things that "might" corroborate it. They ignore anything contradictory as it doesn't get them to their preconceived notion.


I wonder if they mine lead in Argentina????? Oh yeah.... They do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Argentina
Hrrrmmmm. You reckon there might be naturally occuring lead in their environment already? How about if critters around mine tailing piles just happened to get eaten by raptors? Do you suppose that if you banned lead mining and magically sealed every mine in the region that an area with abundant (read commercially viable) deposits of lead might still offer it up to the flora and fauna despite their best banning efforts sometimes?

Nah, doesn't suit their notion, just ignore it.