Is some of our fishing lead deadlier then we may think it is?

For years now I have always wonder about using "contaminated" lead for sinkers. I know that many years ago when I was buying tackle in the bulk at a wholesaler's suite, I was asking them where they had gotten all of their lead that they were using to make their sinkers from.

They told me (and I also saw it with my own eyes) that they were melting down lead containers that were used to carry medical radioactive Isotopes in. Just today a friend of mine bought about 650 lbs of flat looking sheets of lead from a garage sale. He asked the guy were he had got it from and the guy said that is came out of some kind of shielding that were used in hospitals to protect from radiation exposer.

Again, these leads have been exposed to different degrees of radiations and are now being melted down for sinkers or whatever. My question is; once lead has been exposed to radiation, does it carry that radiation with it, and if so, for how long?

I know that lead stops radiation, but does it also "hold" some of the same radiation that it was used to shield from escaping? It seems the older we get, the more we need to get the answers!


Cowlitzfisherman

cfm-
that is a good point. there was an award winning story on NPR last year about recycling radioactive materials and re-using them in products such as forks and spoons and dental appliances.
Since lead is so poisionous even if not rqdio-active... maybe fishermen should switch to something else. i know that nothing will work as well as lead for the price but it must have some toxic effect to throw thousands of pounds of lead into the rivers each year. i am sure that some of it washes out to sea but since it is so heavy, I would guess that much stays in the river and gets deposited in the slower moving pools. after 50 years or so ,of present day fishing numbers, losing as much lead as i do could add up to alot of lead in the rivers

A very serious issue which isn't dealt with often enough. I've wondered a few times about how much contamination is occurring in all bodies of water where fishing lead is used. But now that you mention the issue of radioactive isotopes(assuming that there is some amount clinging to the lead in some way), it makes me wonder what could be happening to some of our fish. To take it even further, I question the safety of eating chinooks out of the hanford reach. The nuclear waste is known to be leaking and reaching groundwater and entering the columbia.
One question I haven't an answer for is how much lead does it take to significantly affect a fish's normal bodily functions? When you drift fish your lead comes out looking all scratched up. It's fairly safe to conclude that some of it got scraped off from banging on rocks. If the radioactive isotopes that we're talking about which we think stick to the lead are heavier than both the lead and the water, then logically it should sink. But aha! If the isotopes are bonded to the lead and the lead is but a mere flake, how long does it take to sink?
On an aside, what about those fly fishermen who still crimp lead shot on their line with their teeth?! Based on what chemistry I know, calcium and lead both have a 2+ charge. In plants, there is no differentiation between lead and calcium since they both have the same charge. So in soils where there is lead "contamination"(any level above the background level), plants take up more lead than calcium and thus you have a problem. I don't know if this is true for other living things like fish, but if it works the same way then I'm sorta scared about what this could mean.

You should never consume fish from the Hanford area. People don't realize the extent of the mess that was left by the DOE. While they have been cleaning it up for a while, there was a tremendous amount of radioactive waste put into the Columbia.

Want to learn just how bad it is? Check this out:
http://nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms/hanford.html

A link to the actual waste types generated:
http://nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms/areas/100/100.html

In addition to radioactive waste, Hanford regularly dumped hexavalent chromium, a corrosion inhibitor that was at the center of the "Erin Brockovich" lawsuit and movie. Very nasty stuff.

Ever since the shift from lead to steel (and other materials) in waterfowl bird shot, I've experimented with steel shot for making slinkies.

It's not as heavy, at least the stuff I have, and it will eventually rust through the parachute cord, but that doesn't seem to cause any problems except aesthetic ones.

It works well for small weights in small streams, but hasn't worked out all that well for swifter, deeper water, yet.

CFM, how many tons of lead do you think are on the bottom of the river at Blue Creek? Maybe it would be more accurate to ask how many tons do you think are deposited each and every season there, as I'm sure there's that much lost?

The reasoning behind banning it for duck/goose hunting was not that lead was contaminating the water, per se, but that the accumulation of lead shot on the bottom of the wetlands was being actually consumed by ducks, which were then being consumed by eagles, who were the ones actually suffering the damage.

That reasoning wouldn't hold true for most of our fishing areas, but who knows? As smaller and smaller impacts, piled on top of the huge impacts of the past and present, start to push fish closer to the brink, restrictions are part of the territory.

Perhaps we'll see bans on using lead for fishing weights in our lifetimes. We'd probably be wise to start looking for viable alternatives now rather than being left high and dry (literally) when and if such a ban ever comes.

Fish on...

Todd.

Ya mean I got a "dirty buzzbomb" in my tackle box??? I deposit approx. 5lbs of lead in WA waters annually. Considering the number of anglers, that adds up to a whole lot o' lead lost. During the highest flows, the river bottom is really moving and grinding rocks; lead too, I suppose. Like gold, maybe the weight of lead causes it to migrate to bedrock, and eventually to bedrock crevices. Anyway, it's out there, and I've been wondering for some time, what environmental price we'll eventually pay because of it.

CFM,

You need not worry about radioisotopes in your lead. However, don't forget that lead itself is highly toxic. I'd bet that if they measured lead levels in people, fishermen would have by far and away the higher levels than the general public (at least in the USA).

We work with radioisotopes in the lab all the time. They ship radioactive 32P, 35S, 14C in lead pigs that weight about a pound.
These isotopes emit beta radiation (free electrons). Lead blocks beta emmissions, but does not become radioactive in the process.

The only way for the lead pigs to become contaminated is to have radioisope spilled on them. When that happens, they are disposed of as radioactive waste.

Putting a radioactive pig into the recycle would be a flagrant infraction of the radioactivity rules and would get you shut down by the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission), no hospital can afford have their radio isotpoe licesnse pullled-so enforcement is very strict. The NRC doesn't mess around, violators are not tolerated. At all.

Hope that helps.

Geoduck

PS. CFM I'm suprised you even believe in radiation,you can't see it. the only people that have ever detected it are scientists. Maybe radiation is a BS science conspiracy?


Cedar River,

Yes I agree there will be an environmental price to pay with all the lead we use. Look at the swans in whatcom co. Remeber, 100 years ago nobody thought mercury was a problem. Boy, where they wrong about that. I think all the solid lead we fishermen put out there could become a problem of similar magnitude to the lead shot problem if not worse.

If there was a viable non-lead alternative I would use it.

Geoduck

Thanks for informing us about the effects of radiation and how it can or can not be affecting us though contaminated lead. That was the type of answer that I was hopping to get from our board members and I appreciate your knowledge and response.

Your last statement to me was a pretty "catty" one, and I would have hopped that you were above that kind of "small minded" way of thinking. But I guess that it made you feel like you have now "gotten-even" because we had held a difference in opinions about science.

Then again, why would anyone expect more from such a well educated scientist's mind?


Cowlitzfisherman

If you are concerned about how much lead is being put into our waters, but have not been satisfied with steel weights, check out these guys:

www.hevishot.com

They make a non-toxic lead substitute for shotgun shells, and are looking into fishing weights. The upside is that the material they use is actually 10% denser than lead, is non-toxic and does not corrode; however, it costs about 15 times as much and cannot be melted and cast into shape due to having a much higher melting temperature than steel.

I have also heard of ceramic, concrete, and cast iron weights.

I got to work with several teams refueling nuclear reactors fo the navy.Goeduck is speaking the truth.Before anybody outside the nuke world gets there hands on this lead it has been"released" meeting even beyond the NRC standards.

Sorry CFM, but isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

I just had to bring my post down to your usual level of discourse to be sure that you would read it.

Anything with just facts might be to dry for you to pay attention.

If I offended I am truly sorry, but I figured you were in this for the verbal jousting as much as the exchange of ideas.

I am not an expert hear but i have hear that the nuclear regulatory commision has as many loopholes as a sweater. If radioactive spoons and dental appliances made it to the public mouths, there may be as much risk or greater of radioactive steel or iron than lead. but the problem remains that lead pipes and paint can kill kids, i am sure that all this lead will come back to haunt us..(atleast i quit pinching split shots with my teeth)

Goeduck

You may be a "scientist", but you're still showing your insecurities!

Quote; "I just had to bring my post down to your usual level of discourse to be sure that you would read it."

Very, very, petty . . . again!

If we had been talking about both of our latest occupations, one could understand your way of thinking or your little catty comments! But that was not the case here. You are apparently still just mad because I challenged your "limited knowledge" on a past thread about your lack of fish knowledge when it came to comparing "trout" studies to "smolts"

In fact, these are your exact words; "CFM, Talk about BS. There is obviously no way to engage in meaningful debate with you. You've again changed topic. My experience handling fish or lack therof is not relevant to the discussion."

It was very "relevant" to the issue of that debate!

Well Geoduck, so tell us; do all "scientists" carry that same arrogant attitude forever, or is it just you? Well, I guess your are right again, after all what does a fishing guide who has only raised and released hundreds of thousands of "smolts" possibly know about hooking mortality or the handling of smolts and their survival?

Geoduck, you didn't offend me, your remarks only offend your fellow scientist who are above making such catty remarks!!

I do enjoy having a healthy debate with you about fishing or its related issues, but I do not enjoy the "your better then me game" that now appears to have started. You have your opinion and I have my, so lets just leave it at that. . .OK?


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM and Geoduck need to chill out! Jeez guys, talk about feuding....

Much of the shielding plates used at Hanford are sent for disposal as radioactive waste. Depending on the type of radiation they are exposed to (they can absorb certain types of radioactivity). Believe me, the shielding plates for reactors will never see their way into your friends garage. Many of the soft lead plates found here and there are from radiology jackets that are worn to protect xray techs from the gamma rays used in xrays. These are safe, as I have aquired them in the past ( I work in the Medical field) and tested them with a geiger counter borrowed from a friend of mine (Hanford Employee).
As far as toxic to rivers..... Lead does leach into water, but it has to be fairly acidic. The reason people get lead poisoning from the old lead pipes was mostly due to the advent of flouride and chlorine in the water system. Wasn't really a problem till they began to add that in the late 50's and 60's. Participated in a pretty in-depth study on the Columbia and it's tributaries in 1991-1993 and lead was hardly detectable in almost all areas. Arsenic, Chromium, DDT, Dioxin, PCP's, etc..... even some Plutonium was far more concentrated and these were all found in fish. The only fish to have minute levels were the andromadous species such as Steelhead and Salmon. The closer they lived to the bottom, the worse the contamination........ Bored yet?

MC