I read articles in the series “Loaded with Lead” and the editorial “Clean up act on lead bullets” [Opinion, April 22]. My analysis of them is based on my background as a shooter and industrial experience in chemistry, toxicology and engineering.
I feel that we don’t have a leaded bullet problem but a facility design, construction, maintenance and management problem — compounded by little training of maintenance personal and lack of protective clothing for maintenance.
Indoor ranges present the greater problem. However, modern range design and construction and good maintenance and management would solve most of the problems. Older ranges can be upgraded or replaced. Better training of personnel would also help. The cost of these improvements would have to be borne the buyers of ammunition at ranges and the users of private ranges.
Your editorial supports banning lead ammunition. If you ban lead, you might as well ban all chemical products because they may be toxic to some living thing at some level of use. A number of products can be manufactured and used safely with technology, knowledge and good judgment. I am knowledgeable of lead’s toxicity. However, lead ammunition has better performance and costs less than green ammunition.
Most Read Opinion Stories
I am now using green ammunition for waterfowl as required by federal law. I use larger shot sizes and more shot to obtain the same effect as lead shot and it costs much more. In the long run, I could be doing more environmental damage by using more green ammunition.
Allan Schneider, Bellevue