Lead to Crime

Has anyone seen this yet?
America’s Real Criminal Element: Lead

A recent study had suggested a link between childhood lead exposure and juvenile delinquency later on. Maybe reducing lead exposure had an effect on violent crime too? That tip took Nevin in a different direction. The biggest source of lead in the postwar era, it turns out, wasn't paint. It was leaded gasoline. And if you chart the rise and fall of atmospheric lead caused by the rise and fall of leaded gasoline consumption, you get a pretty simple upside-down U: Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early '40s through the early '70s, nearly quadrupling over that period. Then, as unleaded gasoline began to replace leaded gasoline, emissions plummeted. Gasoline lead may explain as much as 90 percent of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century. Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the '60s through the '80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early '90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline?page=1 This is mind blowing! Lives destroyed and billions wasted if true. psik
Has anyone seen this yet? America's Real Criminal Element: Lead
A recent study had suggested a link between childhood lead exposure and juvenile delinquency later on. Maybe reducing lead exposure had an effect on violent crime too? That tip took Nevin in a different direction. The biggest source of lead in the postwar era, it turns out, wasn't paint. It was leaded gasoline. And if you chart the rise and fall of atmospheric lead caused by the rise and fall of leaded gasoline consumption, you get a pretty simple upside-down U: Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early '40s through the early '70s, nearly quadrupling over that period. Then, as unleaded gasoline began to replace leaded gasoline, emissions plummeted. Gasoline lead may explain as much as 90 percent of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century. Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the '60s through the '80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early '90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline?page=1 This is mind blowing! Lives destroyed and billions wasted if true. psik
I think it's a long shot and I'm skeptical. I'd want to see some independent research into the subject. Lois
I think it's a long shot and I'm skeptical. I'd want to see some independent research into the subject. Lois
Independent of whom? I have Googled and read 3 articles on the subject so far. The research does not seem to be dependent on anyone who cares. The trouble is that it is all statistical not something that can be physically tested. And it seems the criminologists do not like it. It does not fit into their crime paradigms. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/violent-crime-lead-poisoning-british-export http://ricknevin.com/uploads/Lead_and_Crime_-_Why_This_Correlation_Does_Mean_Causation.pdf The articles are really just pointing to the same statistical data, But the obnoxious thing, if true, is that corportions delayed the elimination of leaded gasoline by 20 years. It is quite strange! psik

One of the problems with most social research is the complexity of factors. For example:

  1. What economic level is associated with most day-to-day crime? - Poorest.
  2. Where were the highest levels of lead emissions? - In areas of highest levels of traffic flow.
  3. Where were the highest levels of traffic flow? - Along major highways and in industrial areas.
  4. How attractive are living areas around major highways and near large industries? - Very unattractive.
  5. Where do those in the lowest economic levels live, predominantly? - In less attractive areas.
  6. Who would be most exposed to lead emissions? - Those living in less attractive areas.
    So, there may be a correlation between lead exposure and crime, but there is also a correlation between level of crime and lower socio-economic members, and a correlation between living area and lead exposure.
    While lead exposure may contribute to criminal behavior, I don’t feel this research demonstrates it at all clearly.
    Occam
While lead exposure may contribute to criminal behavior, I don't feel this research demonstrates it at all clearly. Occam
It is the CHANGE in crime levels corresponding to the change in lead that is indicative in this case. And the changes correlate in different countries, states and cities. And they say the rates of change correspond. http://ricknevin.com/uploads/Lead_and_Crime_-_Why_This_Correlation_Does_Mean_Causation.pdf It is just so weird and out of the blue. Because if it is correct it means changing so many assumptions accepted for decades. The annoying thing is that the statistics can only measure detected crime. If it is true then how much child abuse that was never detected might be explained by this. psik

The only way to truly prove cause and effect of this assertion is to design and experiment where people are exposed to lead in a highly controlled group compared to a base group under the same controls but not exposed to lead. That would be very difficult and unethical.
Corelating data that seem to coincide is not evidence of anything but that the two data sets seem to coincide. It doesn’t prove anything.

The only way to truly prove cause and effect of this assertion is to design and experiment where people are exposed to lead in a highly controlled group compared to a base group under the same controls but not exposed to lead. That would be very difficult and unethical. Corelating data that seem to coincide is not evidence of anything but that the two data sets seem to coincide. It doesn't prove anything.
It's a complicated universe. Surprise, surprise! There are times when we must make decisions under conditions where there cannot be what we normally regard as PROOF. Unless of course we choose to sit on our hands, do nothing and let whatever happens happen. psik
The only way to truly prove cause and effect of this assertion is to design and experiment where people are exposed to lead in a highly controlled group compared to a base group under the same controls but not exposed to lead. That would be very difficult and unethical. Corelating data that seem to coincide is not evidence of anything but that the two data sets seem to coincide. It doesn't prove anything.
It's a complicated universe. Surprise, surprise! There are times when we must make decisions under conditions where there cannot be what we normally regard as PROOF. Unless of course we choose to sit on our hands, do nothing and let whatever happens happen. psik I agree that corporations delayed removing lead and if a legal case can be brought against them it should be. But what do you suggest we do that hasn't already been done or that isn't being done that will stop further lead contamination from now on? Where do you see lead contamination that has not yet been adequately addressed? Since progress has been made to lower the lead people are exposed to, if it is true that there is a correlation to juvenile delinquency rates and possibly to violent crime we should see a drop in those things soon, shouldn't we? Lois
I agree that corporations delayed removing lead and if a legal case can be brought against them it should be. But what do you suggest we do that hasn't already been done or that isn't being done that will stop further lead contamination from now on? Where do you see lead contamination that has not yet been adequately addressed?
At the moment I am not suggesting anything. I was simply bringing something to people's attention which I thought was interesting and had never heard of. I was somewhat shocked at never having heard of it because if it is true then it is a very BIG DEAL and the data is more than 10 years old. I was not even trying to say it was TRUE. Maybe I should not point such things out in the future since people seem to jump to conclusion just because I bring them up. Just because something is false does not necessarily mean we have enough information to know it is false. Just because something is true does not mean we have enough information to know it is true. But some people seem to think that knee jerk scepticism is intelligent and anything that is weird must be false. psik

You know, the new Cosmos series did a segment on lead poisoning in last week’s episode. Very informative.

You know, the new Cosmos series did a segment on lead poisoning in last week's episode. Very informative.
Yeah, that is one thing that kind of struck me. It is the only Cosmos episode I have watched so far and then I see this thing about what the lead contamination supposedly did. I don't recall the Cosmos show saying what the symptoms were. http://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-history/ psik

Below is the list of symptoms I found with a simple search:
Abdominal pain, vomiting, or constipation
Headaches
Difficulty thinking, concentrating, or making decisions
Loss of appetite and weight loss
Pale skin, fatigue, or muscle weakness
Slow or delayed growth in children
Personality changes, mood swings, and trouble sleeping
Seizures or a coma

I agree that corporations delayed removing lead and if a legal case can be brought against them it should be. But what do you suggest we do that hasn't already been done or that isn't being done that will stop further lead contamination from now on? Where do you see lead contamination that has not yet been adequately addressed?
At the moment I am not suggesting anything. I was simply bringing something to people's attention which I thought was interesting and had never heard of. I was somewhat shocked at never having heard of it because if it is true then it is a very BIG DEAL and the data is more than 10 years old. I was not even trying to say it was TRUE. Maybe I should not point such things out in the future since people seem to jump to conclusion just because I bring them up. Just because something is false does not necessarily mean we have enough information to know it is false. Just because something is true does not mean we have enough information to know it is true. But some people seem to think that knee jerk scepticism is intelligent and anything that is weird must be false. psik Not at all. Some weird things are false and some are true. It pays to be skeptical of all claims until hard evidence for them is presented. It's not knee jerk, but critical thinking. Accepting claims with no evidence is a knee jerk reaction and can do as much damage as rejecting claims. Without evidence all claims should be put in the neutral camp. Lois
Below is the list of symptoms I found with a simple search: Difficulty thinking, concentrating, or making decisions Personality changes, mood swings, and trouble sleeping
But those are the ones that could be the subtle results of low levels of lead poisoning and just show up as mass psychological changes of which only a minority influence crime statistics. But then there would lesser effects that never show up in crime statistics but alter society none the less because they are so pervasive. Imagine most of the psychological data collected over the last 60 years being somewhat off. :lol: It appears that for decades low levels were regarded as safe because they did not produce gross symptoms. psik

The list of symptoms may or may not support your and the Mother Jones article’s assertions. However, if you only search for evidence that supports your assertion and exclude evidence that does not support your claim, you are letting your bias cloud your judgement.
Have you tried finding any data that was only examining lead poisoning in an attempt to learn about it, but that was “not” trying to find evidence for a correlation in anyway related to violence? This is what Lois was trying to get you to understand by suggesting you show some independent evidence. In other words, evidence that is not tainted by your assertion and is therefore, independent of your assertion. The scientific method is built on not allowing your own biases to influence your findings.
The alleged correlation of lead poisoning and violent behavior is not likely to be proven without any doubt at this time. It can only be supported or discounted by evidence compiled in the most unbiased manner possible. Dismissing questions and evidence that does not look favorably on your assertion instead of presenting independent evidence and answering the questions is irrational and pointless.
Stop trying to discredit every challenge to your opinions and present your case please.

I believe there have been areas on the world where people were exposed to high levels of naturally occurring lead in their food or water, and as I recall there were a fair number of poisonings because one or two hundred years ago the iron water pipes were lead coated to stop them from rusting. You may want to follow up on those two items to see if there was a major increase in crime in those areas then.
Occam

The list of symptoms may or may not support your and the Mother Jones article's assertions.
Am I making assertions? Have I said this is true? I am saying this is IMPORTANT because IF IT IS TRUE then the effects will be more than just the crime statistics which is driving this entire research. psik
I believe there have been areas on the world where people were exposed to high levels of naturally occurring lead in their food or water, and as I recall there were a fair number of poisonings because one or two hundred years ago the iron water pipes were lead coated to stop them from rusting. You may want to follow up on those two items to see if there was a major increase in crime in those areas then. Occam
I heard of the idea of lead poisoning contributing to the downfall of the Roman Empire decades ago. I was never sufficiently interested to read up on it but it is not a new idea for me. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html Before the 20th century are there good enough crime statistics to be worth talking about? psik

Another side stepping answer.

The list of symptoms may or may not support your and the Mother Jones article's assertions.
Am I making assertions? Have I said this is true? I am saying this is IMPORTANT because IF IT IS TRUE then the effects will be more than just the crime statistics which is driving this entire research. psik How about you answer these questions? Do you believe this is true on a scale of 1 to 5? 1 meaning not at all true. 2 meaning not likely to be true. 3 meaning may or may not be true equally. 4 meaning likely to be true. 5 meaning true. If your answer is 4 or 5, can you defend that stance with any independent evidence? If your answer is 1,2, or 3, why did you start this thread? Is "might be true" a basis for any kind of rational discussion? I look forward to seeing if you further avoid addressing the point of your own thread whith more deflections, or you actually take a stand and defend it. Your choice.