Lead to Crime

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.
What does the word BELIEVE mean? Have you ever looked it up? I have. One definition said, "To accept something as true without absolute proof." What is absolute proof? Doesn't the 'absolute' imply there are degrees of proof as in PROOF versus ABSOLUTE PROOF? There are not degrees of proof, there are degrees of probability. That definition is stupid. I came up with my own definition of BELIEVE. It is to accept something as true, or false, without sufficient evidence. Therefore belief is stupid by definition. The trouble is most people do not use the word SUSPECT very much. Suspecting and believing are two different things. The word suspect presumes that we are dealing with uncertain information and must evaluate evidence for probabilities. Isn't language fun? I neither believe nor disbelieve this business about lead and crime. I simply find it interesting. But if it is true then it is VERY IMPORTANT. Therefore I think it is important to find out for sure whether or not it is VERY IMPORTANT. Is that sufficiently clear? psik

Yet another deflection to avoid answering any questions by shifting to semantics about words I did not use. The one word I did use that you did not address was evidence. Why can’t you answer a simple question or two?
I know you dislike questions but I am terribly curious. What do you mean when you say, “Therefore I think it is important to find out for sure whether or not it is very important.”? I am sorry but that is anything but clear.

Yet another deflection to avoid answering any questions by shifting to semantics about words I did not use. The one word I did use that you did not address was evidence. Why can't you answer a simple question or two? I know you dislike questions but I am terribly curious. What do you mean when you say, "Therefore I think it is important to find out for sure whether or not it is very important."? I am sorry but that is anything but clear.
That's psikey's MO. Arguing with him is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.
I know you dislike questions but I am terribly curious. What do you mean when you say, "Therefore I think it is important to find out for sure whether or not it is very important."? I am sorry but that is anything but clear.
Let us suppose the lead poisoning is totally irrelevant to the crime rate. That means the data is spurious and merely coincidental. Therefore it is not important. Let us suppose the lead poisoning is responsible for at least 80% of the variation in the crime rate. That means it is extremely important. Because if you have read any of the other articles then even though the lead is not in the gasoline and being spewed into the atmosphere anymore it has accumulated in the soil in areas that had high concentrations in the atmosphere. Therefore it is a question of whether or not resources should be expended to do any further clean up. I DO NOT KNOW! And I have not claimed to KNOW. It is only important if it is true but further analysis needs to be done to determine that. DarronS just presumes anyone that doesn't agree with him is simple minded but when they agree they are geniuses. It is not my fault that the English language is semantically stupid and people use it even worse. That is why I suggest this book: The Tyranny of Words (1938) by Stuart Chase http://www.anxietyculture.com/tyranny.htm http://archive.org/details/tyrannyofwords00chas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9H1StY1nU8 The English language should have two words for KNOW. If I say: I know the Eiffel Tower is in Paris France. versus I know the Space Needle is in Seattle Washington. Are they really the same? The difference is I have been to Seattle and seen the Space Needle. I should be able to specify the difference by using different words. Knowing something from second hand sources is not the same as personal experience. This data about lead concentrations and crime statistics is all second hand. I can't KNOW anything about it that you can't know as well. You can read as much about it on the Internet as I can. But I don't know if you have bothered to read a single article. You seem more concerned about me and what I think than the lead. With the other subject that DarronS and I are in dispute about I can and have done experiments. He just talks. psik

Is English your first language? This is like talking to Siri about her first kiss.

Is English your first language? This is like talking to Siri about her first kiss.
English is my only language and I scored in the top 2% on the SAT though my math score what higher than the English. So what is the problem with what I said. Have you read any of the article about the Lead/Crime supposed relationship or not? psik

Yes, I read the article. <---------That is what an answer to a question looks like by the way.

Yes, I read the article. <---------That is what an answer to a question looks like by the way.
Then if you read the article and you do not think there is any possibility of lead influencing those crime statistics then there is no reason for you to be interested in this thread. Right? psik

By your logoc, there is no reason for you to have started this thread.

By your logoc, there is no reason for you to have started this thread.
Well we have a problem with what you call logic. I would have no way of knowing who would be interested or what they would think before I made the post. You are suggesting I should have made assumptions. I have found things interesting even when I decided they were nonsense. But you have to learn enough about it to make the decision. psik

One major problem with the article psikey linked is the NYPD has been underreporting crime stats, especially in the 1990s and 2000s. Kinda blows away the premise.

One major problem with the article psikey linked is the NYPD has been underreporting crime stats, especially in the 1990s and 2000s. Kinda blows away the premise.
That is if you don't actually read the article or check any others.
Just this year, Tulane University researcher Howard Mielke published a paper with demographer Sammy Zahran on the correlation of lead and crime at the city level. They studied six US cities that had both good crime data and good lead data going back to the '50s, and they found a good fit in every single one. In fact, Mielke has even studied lead concentrations at the neighborhood level in New Orleans and shared his maps with the local police. "When they overlay them with crime maps," he told me, "they realize they match up."
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
We evaluate air Pb emissions and latent aggravated assault behavior at the scale of the city. We accomplish this by regressing annual Federal Bureau of Investigation aggravated assault rate records against the rise and fall of annual vehicle Pb emissions in Chicago (Illinois), Indianapolis (Indiana), Minneapolis (Minnesota), San Diego (California), Atlanta (Georgia), and New Orleans (Louisiana). Other things held equal, a 1% increase in tonnages of air Pb released 22 years prior raises the present period aggravated assault rate by 0.46% (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.64). Overall our model explains 90% of the variation in aggravated assault across the cities examined. In the case of New Orleans, 85% of temporal variation in the aggravated assault rate is explained by the annual rise and fall of air Pb (total = 10,179 metric tons) released on the population of New Orleans 22 years earlier. For every metric ton of Pb released 22 years prior, a latent increase of 1.59 (95% CI, 1.36 to 1.83, p < 0.001) aggravated assaults per 100,000 were reported. Vehicles consuming fuel containing Pb additives contributed much larger quantities of Pb dust than generally recognized. Our findings along with others predict that prevention of children's lead exposure from lead dust now will realize numerous societal benefits two decades into the future, including lower rates of aggravated assault.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012000566 psik