I have quoted what OB said in its entirety as it pertains to this conversation. I will try and explain to you once again and hope that you can comprehend this time. As you will note in the first sentence of OB's quote he asked if you are smart enough to realize that 2% of any offending compound, meaning a substance of your choice, that contains in its make up, meaning what it consists of, or made out of, will be far less toxic, meaning less dangerous to you and me and everything in the environment, meaning anything, anyplace on earth, meaning the planet we live on, than something that contains, meaning consists of, meaning made of, 96% of the offending, meaning dangerous compound. In short if you played in the hiway and 2 cars came by, you stand a far better chance of not getting hit than if 96 cars came by.
Nowhere in that did he compare brass and or tungsten. And all he said about brass was that according to Zarra's link to the article, it stated that brass can be manufactured without any lead. In the post in question, I find no evidence that leads to the conculsion that OB compared the toxcity of lead, brass or tungsten.
And to answer your question as to my knowledge of the toxcity of tungsten, last year when this same topic came up, I did a fair amount research on the subject. It would be a futile attempt on my part to share that reseach here, with those that obvioulsy have their minds made up on the subject. There has been some great knowledgable commentary already posted on the subject here only to be subjected to ridicule and speculation.