LOL well up here in Quebec, Canada. Not only did we occasionally do
that Chew sinkers while out fishing, but we ate Duck and Geese that
we had to dig the lead pellets out of after they died of acute lead
impact 
Gee I guess the lead was really toxic, killed them just by
hitting them and in small quantities too sometimes only 2 or 3
pellets.
Really the whole lead thing is so overblown it is ludicrous. Lead
compounds that are easily absorbed (like lead oxide which was used
in paints) are toxic (not very Toxic, but plain toxic), and yes I
know exposure is cumulative because the body clears lead very slowly.
However elemental Lead and non soluble compounds are no worse than
many others. Like anything in life knowing the facts, and here I mean
the scientific facts, not what some pressure group or way out there
"expert" has pronounced to be facts is the best defense. Another
example of lead exposure is that in many US cities lead pipes were
(and still are in use) for distributing water. For decades there was
no problem because the PH of water disinfected with Chlorine was
such that very little lead dissolved. The the discovery was made
that some of the reaction products of clorinating water are cancer
causing (in Rats that is) so many cities switched to other
disenfecting agents such as Ozone or Bromine based compounds, which
changed the PH of the output water from the filtration station, not
by much but enough that cities such as Washington DC that are now
having problems with elevated (as in well above EPA safe limits) lead
concentrations in their water. So which is worse?
One of my Favories is The absolout horror Asbestos is held in...
Instant cascenogin even if it is encapsulated, but if in the same
building YOU WILL GET CANCER… So at the insistence of several
pressure groups relieing on limited studies, it was banned and
declared a class A carcenogin. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying
that asbestos can and does cause cancer, just to what degree and
under what conditions. Cancer is common in Miners and Shipyard and
boiler workers that worked with (and sometimes in) asbestos powder.
However in other indistries using Asbestos the cancer rates are not
statisticially different from background, Why? Maybe the form and
degree of exposure??? Again Statisticially Second hand smoke is
more dangerous than working as a brake mechanic and blowing out the
brake dust (which used to be almost pure asbestos) with compressed
air , like many did for years without cancer, yet I don’t see the
police pulling over a car filled with smoke and children to issue an
EPA ceise and desist order along with a cleanup order. In addition
now they are discovering that the replacement products for Asbestos
that have simuilarr properties of fire resisastince are also friable
and prone to producing fine dust that lo and behold also causes
cancer in the same types and Rates as Asbestos does. Seems it has to
do with particle size and physical shape that causes the cell dammage
that causes cancer, so now a whole new bunch a of warnings are going
out and companies are researching to find other subistutes for the
asbestos substitute.
So a little common sense and a true evaluation of the risk combined
with a knowlwedge of statictics can carry us a long way. Remember if
the risk is 1 in a million that drinking coffee will give you cancer,
and if you drink it in the quanities I do, it doubles your risk of
getting stomach cancer… Well you are still 5 times more likely to
be hit by lightning in north America, and given I really like my
coffee, well I will continue to drink it and avoid trees and wide
open areas or eleveated areas during thunderstorms and gollie gee the
lightning hasn’t found me yet in a half century of trying (In either
case).
Sorry about the rant
Enjoy life
Kay