January 04, 2013
— Ace Interesting article, which I can't evaluate at all because I don't have the data. I just have this guy's word for it (and he relies on other people's word).
Still, interesting.
[I]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.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.
So Nevin dove in further, digging up detailed data on lead emissions and crime rates to see if the similarity of the curves was as good as it seemed. It turned out to be even better: In a 2000 paper (PDF) he concluded that if you add a lag time of 23 years, lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the '40s and '50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s.
...
In states where consumption of leaded gasoline declined slowly, crime declined slowly. Where it declined quickly, crime declined quickly....
If childhood lead exposure really did produce criminal behavior in adults, you'd expect that in states where consumption of leaded gasoline declined slowly, crime would decline slowly too. Conversely, in states where it declined quickly, crime would decline quickly. And that's exactly what she found.
The theory could also explain why big cities had higher per-capita criminality rates than smaller cities -- more cars churning out more leaded fumes in a denser environment. If there's a connection, then the theory also explains why big-city crime rates have declined to be about equal with smaller-city/large-town crime rates (per capita, again)-- without the increased ppm count of tetraethyl lead in the air, there is no built-in bias for higher crime rates in big cities.
A couple of days back Purple Avenger noted another epidemic-like cause for suboptimal brain functioning: infectious diseases and parasites might substantially knock down IQs in less-developed parts of the world.
Mother Jones is inclined to believe any Environmental Horror story because, well, Mother Jones. But while there are a lot of Boys Crying Wolf of the luddite left, there actually are some genuine wolves, too. Rickets became infamously common in children in Industrial Age Britain, and ultimately the cause turned out to be environmental -- shadows from buildings, soot from factories, and too much time indoors was blocking the body's natural production of Vitamin D from ultraviolet sunlight. (Which is why they started fortifying milk with the vitamin.)
I've harbored a bias towards pathogenic-type explanations for these sorts of things for a while now-- seizing on the theory that schizophrenia is caused by a virus.
The brain, being the most complicated organ, would I think naturally be the one most susceptible to bugs and glitches caused by small things. Simple things tend to be hardy; complicated things tend to be finicky and balky and prone to odd malfunctions.
Posted by: Ace at
11:58 AM
| Comments (608)
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 12:01 PM (b1VIZ)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 12:02 PM (5PkZK)
Posted by: joncelli at January 04, 2013 12:03 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at January 04, 2013 12:03 PM (T/L2Z)
There's a theory that part of what weakened the Roman Empire was the lead in their pipes. And by "in" I think I mean "entirely composing."
Posted by: Lance McCormick at January 04, 2013 12:03 PM (zgHLA)
Posted by: EC Works For Dick Jones....DICK JONES!!!! at January 04, 2013 12:04 PM (GQ8sn)
Curious, does Japan have a history of lead poisoning?
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 12:04 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: tgibeachf at January 04, 2013 12:04 PM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 12:04 PM (53z96)
Posted by: Joe Mama at January 04, 2013 12:04 PM (v9Cj5)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 12:04 PM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 04:02 PM (5PkZK)
^^This
Also:
I submit (following Alasdair MacIntyre) that there are simply too many confounding variables to determine the truth of this.
The emergence of Crack caused the crime wave, the closing of institutions.
Far to many things to possibly be blamed, you can't isolate all the variables to blame one thing.
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 04, 2013 12:05 PM (5BEp7)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 12:05 PM (b1VIZ)
If leaded gasoline really was the culprit, wouldn't we be able to replicate the data?
We could just put the lead back in and see what happens, or cross-check crime data with countries that still use lead gas [although thats prolly only like Africa or whatnot]
Posted by: uterus cannon at January 04, 2013 12:05 PM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at January 04, 2013 04:03 PM (T/L2Z)
Lots and lots of incarcerations probably had more to do with it.
Posted by: joncelli at January 04, 2013 12:05 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Tommy Boy at January 04, 2013 12:05 PM (I88Jc)
Not that Rome needed any help in falling. The bigger question is how did the Empire last as long as it did. Anyway, just wanted to toss that out there.
So bored at work now. So bored.
Posted by: Lance McCormick at January 04, 2013 12:05 PM (zgHLA)
Posted by: Bookdoc at January 04, 2013 12:05 PM (OmjtN)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 12:06 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 12:06 PM (GFM2b)
Dr. Jill's regular administration of Frying Pan Therapy has had no effect on me at all.
Posted by: Joe Biden at January 04, 2013 12:06 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Lance McCormick at January 04, 2013 12:06 PM (zgHLA)
Posted by: Midnight Bassetball at January 04, 2013 12:07 PM (v9Cj5)
There's a theory that part of what weakened the Roman Empire was the lead in their pipes. And by "in" I think I mean "entirely composing."
If so, that means that the entire eastern half of the empire either didn't use lead pipes or were somehow otherwise immune...
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 04, 2013 12:07 PM (/D/u1)
Posted by: Lance McCormick
It probably didn't help and, no, I do not drink from lead pipes, but those aqueduct pipes became coated in minerals rather quickly. They would have to excavate them occasionally removing the coating, but it would build up again.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 04, 2013 12:07 PM (KDq5l)
Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 12:07 PM (53z96)
There's a lot of questionable correlations like these..
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 04, 2013 12:08 PM (f9c2L)
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 12:08 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: tgibeachf at January 04, 2013 12:08 PM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:09 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Yoda, stoned on jimson weed again at January 04, 2013 12:09 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: dananjcon at January 04, 2013 12:09 PM (jvd3N)
The Crime wave was caused by children growing up without fathers. The Fathers were absent because the "War on Poverty" made them unnecessary.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:09 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Bud Norton at January 04, 2013 12:09 PM (6cOMd)
Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 12:09 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 12:09 PM (oKVrA)
I don't think that justifies abortion, but when you look at how many occur in the inner cities, every metropolitan area would probably be some cross between Detroit and rio de janeiro.
Posted by: McAdams at January 04, 2013 12:09 PM (Sp8J7)
Posted by: power lines and cancer ( esp in Long Island ) at January 04, 2013 12:10 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: uterus cannon at January 04, 2013 04:06 PM (3ZtZW)
Ruined engines?
Posted by: Tami at January 04, 2013 12:10 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 04, 2013 12:10 PM (feFL6)
The Biden wave, on the other hand, is likely due to the long-term effects of leaded paint and uterine alcohol.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 12:10 PM (cgXOM)
Take Detroit for example. There are far fewer people with far fewer cars spewing far less lead. Crime is still rampant. The inner ring suburbs which were peaceful during the leaded gasoline era are now turning into crime havens because (you guessed it) the former residents of Detroit moved to the suburbs.
Crime went down because liberal crime policies were abandoned. There was a propensity in the past to let repeat offenders out of jail early. When that ended crime went down. The end.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 04, 2013 12:10 PM (x0g8a)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 12:10 PM (b1VIZ)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 12:10 PM (evdj2)
The Roman Empire really did not fail. What happened is that it ran out of the ability to continue to expand and rob other countries of booty to pay the troops with. When they lost the grain fields in North Africa they could no longer support much of anything and the "empire" began separating into separate fiefdoms controlled by "Bishops" of the church.
Those fiefdoms eventually began the countries of Europe.
Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 12:11 PM (53z96)
>>>The Latin word for Plumbing is he same as the word for Lead.
Thats the reason its chem symbol is Pb
/true story
Posted by: uterus cannon at January 04, 2013 12:11 PM (3ZtZW)
.........
Here in Chicago you have to get 'em pretty early to avoid their additions to the gene pool.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 04, 2013 12:11 PM (f9c2L)
I think we need experimentation. Put a bunch of Occutards in a sealed room and then connect a pipe to a car burning leaded gas.........
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 12:11 PM (X70gw)
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 12:11 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: derit at January 04, 2013 12:11 PM (I88Jc)
While lead is exceptionally toxic, it probably is not the sole culprit. But leaded gasoline smells so much better. Reminds me of 1973.
Posted by: Pug Mahon at January 04, 2013 12:11 PM (K+mtQ)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 04:10 PM (b1VIZ)
You gonna eat those chips?
Posted by: Meghan McCain at January 04, 2013 12:11 PM (QKKT0)
so, f*ck lead
Posted by: serious crime at January 04, 2013 12:12 PM (Dll6b)
Or is this all just arm-waving?
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 04, 2013 12:12 PM (S/WR4)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:12 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:12 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 12:12 PM (+lsX1)
It is axiomatic from my perspective that if a child grows up without a father to whip his ass and teach him to behave, he is very likely to follow a "Lord of the Flies" mindset. I've seen graphs and studies which indicate that 3/4ths of the prison population in the US consists of males raised by single female parents.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:12 PM (bb5+k)
I don't think that justifies abortion, but when you look at how many occur in the inner cities, every metropolitan area would probably be some cross between Detroit and rio de janeiro.
That assumes that women would have been as casual about getting pregnant without the option of legally killing the baby as with it...I suspect that without easy abortion the sexual revolution would not have progressed as far as it has.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 04, 2013 12:12 PM (/D/u1)
Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at January 04, 2013 12:12 PM (RuUvx)
No worries, derit. Great minds and all that.
Posted by: Pug Mahon at January 04, 2013 12:12 PM (K+mtQ)
If so, that means that the entire eastern half of the empire either didn't use lead pipes or were somehow otherwise immune...
Like I said, a theory. Anyway, the Western Empire wasn't exactly robust in the last few centuries. The "fall" was more of a decline until Romulus Augustulus was exiled, and then there was no more pretending. A lot of these historical divisions are artificial. Gradual change turns one thing into another, but you kind of need an event or series of events to say that X is now definitively not X but now Y. I just wanted to mention it because lead poisoning is real and dangerous, but not as big a deal now as it once was.
Posted by: Lance McCormick at January 04, 2013 12:13 PM (zgHLA)
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 04:11 PM (X70gw)
Gonna need a control group of occutards in a room pumped with unleaded.
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 12:13 PM (b1VIZ)
Re: Lead poisoning in ancient Rome
It wasn't just in their pipes...there was also lead in their dishes and tablewear.
Posted by: wheatie at January 04, 2013 12:13 PM (dC04t)
Posted by: Lance McCormick at January 04, 2013 04:05 PM (zgHLA)
Pater Familius. That's why the Roman empire lasted as long as it did.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:13 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 12:13 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:14 PM (LCRYB)
The inner ring suburbs which were peaceful during the leaded gasoline era are now turning into crime havens because (you guessed it) the former residents of Detroit moved to the suburbs.
...
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 04, 2013 04:10 PM (x0g8a)
------
But there is a 20-year lag in exposure due to childhood development.
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 12:14 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Polyester Pants at January 04, 2013 04:11 PM (v9Cj5)
Me either, man.
Posted by: Completely unrestrained drug use at January 04, 2013 12:14 PM (+xmn4)
claimed he could make five dollars a day--back when the minimum wage was $1.60 hr
Posted by: Bill in Billings at January 04, 2013 12:15 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at January 04, 2013 12:16 PM (21TJo)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:16 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: polynikes at January 04, 2013 12:16 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 04:09 PM (Dnbau)
You explain the population bump, but you don't explain the criminal mindset. The Criminal mindset is the default mindset when a child is raised without a father teaching them discipline.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:16 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 12:16 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 12:16 PM (Hz1zc)
Or, you know, more stressed people in closer proximity annoying the hell out of each other. Either/Or.
Put two rats in a box with enough food and they'll be OK. Put fifty in the same box with still plenty of food and there will be much angst. And fighting.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 04, 2013 12:16 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at January 04, 2013 12:17 PM (hlkDc)
Fear me.
Posted by: fluffy at January 04, 2013 12:17 PM (VLfx+)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:17 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 12:17 PM (RuUvx)
Here's an abstract from a review that appeared in an American journal last year:
Immunological hypotheses have become increasingly prominent when studying the etiology of schizophrenia. Autoimmune diseases, and especially the number of infections requiring hospitalization, have been identified as significant risk factors for schizophrenia in a dose-response relationship, which seem compatible with an immunological hypothesis for subgroups of patients with schizophrenia. Inflammation and infections may affect the brain through many different pathways that are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can possibly increase the risk of schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals. However, the findings could also be an epiphenomenon and not causal, due to, for instance, common genetic vulnerability, which could be supported by the observations of an increased prevalence of autoimmune diseases and infections in parents of patients with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, autoimmune diseases and infections should be considered in the treatment of individuals with schizophrenia symptoms, and further research is needed of the immune system's possible contributing pathogenic factors in the etiology of schizophrenia.
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22823436
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 12:17 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 12:18 PM (IvVLN)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 04:13 PM (b1VIZ)
----------------------------------------------
Ah. Yes. Science. It's a wonderful thing.
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 12:18 PM (X70gw)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:18 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 12:18 PM (r2PLg)
Besides, back in those days, we weren't all warm and fuzzy with inclusiveness and diversity like we are today.
Posted by: Rick Santorum at January 04, 2013 12:18 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 04, 2013 12:18 PM (5DR1j)
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 12:19 PM (UypUQ)
14Another BS hypothesis. Yes, correlation = causation. No problem with all the damn rise of progressive thought, be nice to criminals, and the great society which has done more to yank up crime than anything else in the universe.
Go, Vic! Idiot judges, "academics" social scientist experts substitute their "Cogito Ergo Sum" thoughts for the standard that works in faith in Jesus Christ. Rousseau, Hobbes, Marx, Sanger, Mead, Hitler, Lenin, Kinsey, Darwin put up as ideals have not only failed to thrive, but went on to murder millions.
"What doesn't kill me makes me stronger?" No, what doesn't kill you leaves a permanent mark that distorts your formation and inflicts baggage that millions more will have to endure until you finally work out your "issues." Unless you seek forgiveness and healing so that you may participate in the charity and mercy we all innately expect, deserve and prefer to practice.
Thank you, Mr. Ace!
Posted by: DM at January 04, 2013 12:19 PM (LaKlJ)
That's a Bazooka Joe joke if there ever was one. And just as funny. Hadji the Muslim Comic better watch out.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 04, 2013 12:19 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Jaws at January 04, 2013 12:19 PM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 12:19 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:19 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:19 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Evi L. Bloggerlady at January 04, 2013 12:20 PM (4kTo2)
Correlation does not equal causation.
Maybe not but it is a pretty eerie coincidence no?. We know for a fact that lead is bad for kids.
So.......
Posted by: eleven at January 04, 2013 12:20 PM (VhqUZ)
I wonder if IQs traced the inverse of this curve, then.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 04, 2013 12:20 PM (S/WR4)
That assumes that women would have been as casual about getting pregnant without the option of legally killing the baby as with it...I suspect that without easy abortion the sexual revolution would not have progressed as far as it has.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 04, 2013 04:12 PM (/D/u1)
Getting pregnant out of wedlock was automatic freedom from your parents and a guaranteed income back in the 1960s thanks to Johnson's "Great Society" programs.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:20 PM (bb5+k)
Interesting article, which I can't evaluate at all because I don't have the data.
This is an absurd conclusion. This is an attempt to whitewash what is now apparent about the 60-80's and the rise of progressivism, war on poverty, and how those drastic social changes affected the health of our society, and point that ire toward, oh a convenient prog foil, pollution. Never mind the fact that the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s had huge amounts of heavy metals in the cities due to industry. Hell they used to mine for gold in California using mercury.
A conclusion like this that simply pretends that a massive societal value shift either didn't happen or was simply not significant is intellectually dishonest or woefully ignorant. Either way it is a conclusion not to be taken seriously.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 04, 2013 12:20 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Ergtrue Breathehard at January 04, 2013 12:20 PM (cgXOM)
Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at January 04, 2013 12:20 PM (RuUvx)
Besides, back in those days, we only had 3 TV networks that delivered fairly objective news to the masses. Now, we have a Democratic 4th Estate.
Posted by: Chet Huntley at January 04, 2013 12:20 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 12:21 PM (UypUQ)
That is the way I think of all large urban areas now. A high level of rats/sq ft.
Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 12:21 PM (53z96)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 12:21 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 12:21 PM (RuUvx)
Wherever the Bastard People move, there you have crime. It's the dangdest thing
And yet it decreased on a time lag identical to the decrease in leaded gas apparently.
Posted by: eleven at January 04, 2013 12:22 PM (VhqUZ)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 04, 2013 12:22 PM (5DR1j)
Those things haven't declined at all.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 12:22 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Truman North, idol of dozens at January 04, 2013 12:22 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Jehu at January 04, 2013 12:22 PM (cSD32)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:14 PM (LCRYB)
And who is going to knock up a girl and leave the government to feed her and the children?
And why is a girl going to resist when she gets free housing and free money to spend?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:22 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Helen at January 04, 2013 12:22 PM (93bH6)
The Roman Empire did not weaken and collapse overnight and it did not fail due to a weak society. That is a common myth.
The Roman Empire really did not fail. What happened is that it ran out of the ability to continue to expand and rob other countries of booty to pay the troops with. When they lost the grain fields in North Africa they could no longer support much of anything and the "empire" began separating into separate fiefdoms controlled by "Bishops" of the church.
Since I am supposed to be a historian of sorts:
The first part is true, the second is wrong. The Empire ceased expanding by the time of Hadrian, and continued for many years afterwards,and functioned for centuries afterwards - the causes of collapse were many and included constant civil war, increasingly sophisticated "barbarian" opponents (German society in particular changed dramatically in the third century), and a series of poor decisions at critical points in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.
Also, territorial control fell upon the barbarian successor kings and their nobles, not just bishops, though church officials at times also wielded secular power. Feudalism came much later, after the collapse of the Carolingian Empire.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 04, 2013 12:22 PM (/D/u1)
and besides again one doesn't have to just get silly about this and claim ONE cause is responsible for EVERYTHING.
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:18 PM (LCRYB)
Think I saw this on a link dump here actually. A long article in the Atlantic about closing down section 8 housing and spreading the people out into the communities has caused massive crimewaves in a wide swath of neighborhoods. I don't remember the city that it was though.
Also, using Brooklyn as an example, it's been gentrifying and previously high-crime no-go zones have become trendy and hip. In some cases this has displaced the previous criminal element to more suburban neighborhoods.
Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 12:22 PM (+xmn4)
Posted by: polynikes at January 04, 2013 04:16 PM (m2CN7)
---------------------------------------------
Isn't this also about the time Twinkies came on the market?
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 12:23 PM (X70gw)
Posted by: Naqamel at January 04, 2013 12:23 PM (UMwMT)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 12:23 PM (HDgX3)
If you are going to tell me the cities of 1965 had more harmful chemicals and metals in them then the cities of 1925 I'm going to laugh at you.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 04, 2013 12:23 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Invictus at January 04, 2013 12:23 PM (OQpzc)
No, it's not. The fact of the matter is that all kinds of things correlate for no other reason than pure coincidence. I can flip a coin a hundred times, and the pattern will match some hit song. This is how conspiracy lunacy evolves, and it's one of the first things that they're supposed to teach in any statistics class. Run enough numbers, and you can find a way to correlate anything.
Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 12:23 PM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:23 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Farts at January 04, 2013 12:23 PM (UgFxe)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 12:24 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: Mick Jagger at January 04, 2013 12:24 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: JohnW at January 04, 2013 12:24 PM (Scw23)
Posted by: Romulus at January 04, 2013 12:24 PM (DrC22)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 12:24 PM (5PkZK)
sure. Not to get way ahead of things, but why so many single female parents, then?
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:16 PM (LCRYB)
Johnson's programs made it feasible.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:24 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 12:24 PM (Hz1zc)
If a blind man leads another blind man's fuel, they shall both drive into a pit.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 12:24 PM (cgXOM)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:25 PM (LCRYB)
Us kids had to eat something back then because madame big butt had not created wholesome food yet!
Posted by: SouthTexas at January 04, 2013 12:25 PM (Rmz5I)
Posted by: uterus cannon at January 04, 2013 12:25 PM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at January 04, 2013 12:25 PM (SkyIE)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:19 PM (LCRYB)
You are comparing a objective etiology of a disease to a societal phenomonen. Not that you have this infliction, but besides lacking in cause and effect prowess, liberals also are born without the gene that allows for logical comparisons.
Posted by: polynikes at January 04, 2013 12:26 PM (m2CN7)
Those things haven't declined at all.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 04:22 PM (ZKzrr)
**
You're right...Exhibit A: Mooch.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 04, 2013 12:26 PM (jvd3N)
I need to stitch that into a sampler.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 12:27 PM (ZKzrr)
The distribution of known violent offense--excluding robbery--is flat between puberty and middle age. Robbers rob when they're fit to do it, and the physical/hormonal/psychological fitness to rob arises suddenly in the early teens, peaks in the later teens, and immediately dramatically drops off. Before 23.
Robberies are a huge percentage of violent crimes. And the rest are assault. Almost nobody gets murdered or raped (or "other")--statistically speaking. Murderers and rapists tend to be about thirty years old.
Nothing clusters around 23.
Posted by: oblig. at January 04, 2013 12:27 PM (cePv8)
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2013 12:27 PM (vuIm8)
----
It could explain those stupid noun declensions, too.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 12:27 PM (XUKZU)
The second part is the latest theory put forth by a historian I read whose name I can not remember right now. In any case, I made no mention of feudalism. That did come later but it was after the separated Roman provinces became countries of their own.
Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 12:27 PM (53z96)
That is the way I think of all large urban areas now. A high level of rats/sq ft.
Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 04:21 PM (53z96)
If you haven't read it yet, go to "American Thinker" and look up "Pigeons, Rats, and Democrats." It will not only entertain you, but it may very well enlighten you. (Well, maybe not YOU, but other people.)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:28 PM (bb5+k)
Because the law has made single-parent families more common, and men are (as a rule) infantile jerks who are allergic to responsibility?
There's a reason that we evil Social Cons point out that the concept of marriage and the traditional family unit is as much (or more) for the protection of women as it is for anything else.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 04, 2013 12:28 PM (5DR1j)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:28 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: dogfish at January 04, 2013 12:28 PM (NuPNl)
Posted by: Invictus at January 04, 2013 12:28 PM (OQpzc)
There is a Calvinist streak in American and European thinking that wants to explain away the existence of Evil by attributing it to some sophisticated type of predetermination.
When trying to explain pain and tragedy, it is easier to believe that something went wrong along the way, rather than that an individual chose to inflict the pain, or in other words, chose Evil.
Posted by: dan-O at January 04, 2013 12:28 PM (HKV3S)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:29 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 12:29 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 12:29 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2013 12:29 PM (LPRBM)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 12:30 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 04:20 PM (bb5+k
True. I just find it hard to believe that the easy availability of abortion has no impact on women's sexual choices.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 04, 2013 12:30 PM (/D/u1)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 12:31 PM (r2PLg)
The use of tetraethyl lead for car engines has been phased out since about 1975.
We should thank Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford for ending this lawlessness.
Posted by: President Barack “Unexpectedly” Obama at January 04, 2013 12:31 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 12:31 PM (Hz1zc)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:31 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 12:31 PM (b1VIZ)
Posted by: Cricket at January 04, 2013 12:31 PM (DrC22)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 04, 2013 12:31 PM (feFL6)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 12:31 PM (RuUvx)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 04:23 PM (Tt6ky)
-----------------------------------------
100% agree. There's a statistical formula for every result that you want.
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 12:31 PM (X70gw)
If being shot "caused" death, all shooting victims would be dead.
If having unprotected sex "caused" AIDS, everyone who had unprotected sex would have AIDS.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 12:32 PM (SY2Kh)
---
I'm glad you said late fourth and early fifth centuries rather than late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries or I would be worried.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 12:32 PM (XUKZU)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 12:33 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 12:33 PM (RuUvx)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Lord Commander of the Knights who say Ni! at January 04, 2013 12:33 PM (GBXon)
Did Leaded Gasoline Fuel the 60s-80s Crimewave?
As a voice crying out in the wilderness, I say again: correlation is not causation.
In fact, the whole thing is simple-minded. Europe has used leaded gasoline since ... forever ... and does to this day.
A more likely explanation: in the 60s-80s the Baby Boom generation was in their late teens to mid twenties, the wonder years for crime. Fewer late teens to mid-twenties, less crime. Makes sense, no?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 12:33 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 12:33 PM (evdj2)
It could all be explained by--
hair perms and Jheri Curl!!!
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (r2PLg)
I was about to post that if you look at crime statistics by ethnicity then the lead theory has to extend to certain ethnic groups being effected differently.
Posted by: polynikes at January 04, 2013 12:33 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 12:33 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 12:33 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Elliott Ness at January 04, 2013 12:33 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 12:34 PM (GFM2b)
How judgmental! Not all differently-IQ'd persons are criminals!
/liberal
Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 12:34 PM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (X70gw)
In this case, how can I get the numbers to read "Emma Stone climbing into my bed" at 100%?
Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 12:34 PM (+xmn4)
Posted by: Peter, Paul and Mary at January 04, 2013 12:34 PM (DrC22)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 04, 2013 12:34 PM (UgFxe)
Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 12:34 PM (EWsrI)
FLA had a state minimum wage of 1.25 an hour, tho. Work four hours, make five dollars.
Posted by: Bill in Billings at January 04, 2013 12:34 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:34 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 12:35 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Invictus at January 04, 2013 04:28 PM (OQpzc)
Cigarettes dramatically improve the probabilities of getting cancer for those with a predisposition to get it. That is a large chunk of the population.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:35 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 12:35 PM (RuUvx)
Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2013 12:36 PM (w3+gB)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 04, 2013 12:36 PM (R8hU8)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 12:36 PM (r2PLg)
The brain, being the most complicated organ, would I think naturally be the one most susceptible to bugs and glitches caused by small things.
Actually, I'd think just the opposite: the brain as the most important organ - well, second most anyway - would be most protected from environmental insults. Evidence: the skull, for physical protection, and the blood-brain barrier, for physiological protection. The latter is one of the biggest impediments to developing drugs for neurology.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 12:36 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 04, 2013 04:30 PM (/D/u1)
The incentives are such that you get paid more for more children.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:36 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:37 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 12:37 PM (b1VIZ)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:37 PM (NIZHJ)
---
You'd have to control somehow for the criminals who go uncaught. Call it the Members of Congress Fudge Factor.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 12:37 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: teej at January 04, 2013 12:37 PM (Khu8a)
This is why I would never drive a Toyota Prion.
Posted by: Joe Biden at January 04, 2013 12:37 PM (QKKT0)
Not if those different ethnic groups were exposed to different levels of lead, say, by being themselves correlated with poverty. This is why they try to control for other factors. Ace is right, lead may be one of a multiplicity of factors.
Or it may not. Further study is needed.
Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 12:38 PM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 04, 2013 12:38 PM (wrrFE)
Taxpayers spent a lot of money removing lead paint from public housing and on awareness campaigns, so there had better be some truth to this.
I always said that if we treated fatherless homes with at least as much urgency as lead paint, kids and taxpayers would be better off. (The developmental detriments are similar.) But, you know....
Posted by: CJ at January 04, 2013 12:38 PM (9KqcB)
One of the things this thread proves is that leftists have corrupted everything in our culture to the point where we can't believe anything scientists, teachers, historians say anymore.
The Bible warned us of these times when it says that the wisdom of man will eventually fail all of us.
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 12:38 PM (X70gw)
Posted by: Rob McNeece at January 04, 2013 12:38 PM (YesJa)
Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2013 04:36 PM (w3+gB)
**
Detroit of all cities should have banned it yeas ago as well.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 04, 2013 12:39 PM (jvd3N)
Posted by: derit at January 04, 2013 12:39 PM (I88Jc)
Ever try to find someone to rape on a commercial fishing boat?
Posted by: The Gortons Fisherman at January 04, 2013 12:39 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 04:02 PM (5PkZK)
But causation does have correlation.
So if you can show correlation between two things with a plausible connection, then it's worthwhile to investigate further and design experiments to verify whether there's a causal relationship.
I'm open to the possibility that environmental lead exposure may be related to overall crime rates. It needs more study and analysis to determine whether it's true or not. But many people here seem quick to dismiss any correlation as just chance.
Posted by: Mætenloch at January 04, 2013 12:39 PM (XkotV)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:40 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Lord Commander of the Knights who say Ni! at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (GBXon)
Plus a new highly militarized social structure that allowed them to field smaller but much better equipped and faster moving bodies troops that were capable of defeating the roman army a lot of the time, though the Roman historians tried pretend that wasn't true (Ammianus Marcellinus, I am looking at you!)
Gotta go now.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 04, 2013 12:40 PM (/D/u1)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 04, 2013 04:38 PM (wrrFE)
Define 'just fine'.
Posted by: Tami at January 04, 2013 12:40 PM (X6akg)
There may be. But bigger things were at work, and had been since the late 1800s. By the end of the 50's the takeover of college level humanities was complete and a new generation of indoctrination would begin.
In 1957 if a college professor had said tune in, turn on, and drop out. He might not have survived the rail ride out of town.
I accept that some things can have an effect. I reject a conclusion that an environmental factor is a significant cause without a lot more analysis. What was going on in society at the time was a far bigger factor. And what was going on, was what had been planned and executed for generations.
We are still human beings capable of analyzing our lives. And so long as we remain so, what we learn and what we believe will always be the lion share of what we do.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 04, 2013 12:41 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 12:41 PM (+xmn4)
209If cigarettes "caused" cancer, all smokers would get cancer.
Posted by: Invictus at January 04, 2013 04:28 PM (OQpzc)
C'mon. That's a silly argument. Extend it to other things to see why. "If drinking and driving caused accidents, everyone who drinks and drives would be in an accident." See the problem?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 12:41 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 12:41 PM (evdj2)
I don't. Abortion has never been popular except with the "intelligentsia" and the eugenics crowd.
As for ace's "multiplicity of reasons" that doesn't work, either.
IF leaded fuel was (as posited) THE reason for increased crime in the 60's - 80's, AND the other factors were also true (better at getting and keeping criminals off the streets, an empowered citizenry both to resist crime and to help in capturing criminals, etc.) THEN it would follow that crime would have come down faster than it went up- one cause for it going up as opposed to multiple causes for it coming back down, and one of those causes for decrease being the inverse of the cause for increase.
However, IF there were multiple reasons (including, I'll grant the possibility, leaded fuel) for the increase in crime THEN it would follow that the curves would look the same (multiple causes v multiple causes).
But if that's true, then singling out single item as the, or even "a" cause of the increased crime is meaningless.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 04, 2013 12:42 PM (5DR1j)
I was about to post that if you look at crime statistics by ethnicity then the lead theoryhas to extend to certain ethnic groups being effected differently.
Don't you mean identically?
Posted by: eleven at January 04, 2013 12:42 PM (VhqUZ)
A more likely explanation: in the 60s-80s the Baby Boom generation was in their late teens to mid twenties, the wonder years for crime. Fewer late teens to mid-twenties, less crime. Makes sense, no? Posted by: Jay Guevara
----
I dunno, but in the article the researcher claims to find the same correlation in European countries. In fact, every country in the planet that's been looked at shows the same results.
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 12:42 PM (UypUQ)
I can look it up if you like, but I'm quite sure there is a strongly positive correlation between low IQ and criminality.
Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve will provide data up the wazoo in support of just that contention.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 12:43 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:43 PM (LCRYB)
The EPA regulations for contractors doing ANY work on a pre-1978 home basically look like those of a SuperFund site because of lead paint. Clean up has to be done by EPA-trained & certified contractors - goodbye local plumbers & electricians. The enviro-whackos would be calling to have all the pre-1978 homes destroyed if they weren't so petrified of lead dust.
Expect a lot more problems to be traced to lead, I predict it will be the new environmental crisis.
Posted by: jeannebodine at January 04, 2013 12:43 PM (x0dlI)
---
True, today everything is spin.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 12:43 PM (XUKZU)
lunchbox - the cans with the lead soldered seam up the side. And I think
everyone would agree that I turned out just fine.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 04, 2013 04:38 PM (wrrFE)
Says the guy who sips Bourbon through a Crazee straw and mows down union schleps with his F250.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 04, 2013 12:44 PM (jvd3N)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:37 PM (LCRYB)
I think a more humble approach to science though would say "this could be important, or not and teasing out the variables is neigh impossible."
Removing lead from Gasoline was probably a good thing in the long run for a Myriad of factors, I'm not sure trying to pin the crime wave on it is really a good use of time.
Furthermore, I'm perplexed that he stuck solely to the US for his analysis. Wikipedia tells me Europe used EtOH first, then Lead in Gasoline, so in theory you'd get a bimodal curve there if you looked. Science that ignores the obvious data point is usually pushing correlation more than anything. (and it would help correct for massive societal confounding factors.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 04, 2013 12:44 PM (5BEp7)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 12:44 PM (5TFvk)
No, I'm *positive* our Government would NEVER just start counting differently if the trends started looking bad. The media would catch this immediately and be all over them for sure.
Sigh...
/endsarc
Hey dumbfuck Rob....it was a question. You could have said yes but you chose not to. Why is that?
Posted by: eleven at January 04, 2013 12:44 PM (VhqUZ)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 12:44 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 04, 2013 12:45 PM (MPjT8)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 12:45 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 04:34 PM (+xmn4)
----------------------------------------------------
I worked the data and calculations and the results is that your SOL. But for me it's 100%, plus or minus two.
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 12:45 PM (X70gw)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:46 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 12:46 PM (Hz1zc)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:46 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Lead at January 04, 2013 12:46 PM (a0nis)
I dunno, but in the article the researcher claims to find the same correlation in European countries.
But how could that be? Europe uses leaded gasoline to this day, so there should be relatively little variation.
Before plumping for exotic (read: far-fetched) conjectures, the authors need to normalize for the age distribution.
Twenty year olds from back then are middle-aged or older now. I bet the data correlate much better with the number of 20 year olds in the population. That, and throw in an unpopular war, and Red agitation undermining traditional authority, handcuff the police, stir up the brothers, and voila! A crime wave.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 12:47 PM (4u2LN)
Not that I think a direct causation of any kind is likely.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 12:47 PM (cgXOM)
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at January 04, 2013 12:47 PM (8hBZi)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 12:47 PM (r2PLg)
Well put Soona.
Posted by: dananjcon at January 04, 2013 12:47 PM (jvd3N)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 12:47 PM (XUKZU)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 12:47 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 12:47 PM (IvVLN)
Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 12:48 PM (Dnbau)
This is the same logic which is used to argue for global warming - CO2 causes temperature rise, temperatures have been rising while human industry has been increasing (and CO2 production as well) so therefore humans are causing the temperature to rise.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 04:44 PM (5TFvk)
Thank you. I was just about to point out the parallel in the logic.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 12:48 PM (4u2LN)
But what people also know is that if a correlation is found it bears investigation, rather than, as some people insist on doing, saying "I don't know the data but I'm just going to pronounce this hooey, because that's Science."
I don't know if this is true. Said so at the top. I said it's "interesting." I do think it's interesting.
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:43 PM (LCRYB)
It might be a contributing factor, but I think the same thing would have happened with no lead in the environment what so ever.
Children are born self centered. They have to be taught to be otherwise. That task falls to a Father to teach discipline. Women are mostly not good at it.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:48 PM (bb5+k)
They've been trying to ban ammunition with lead for some time now. I figure the anti-gun people have already been calling them...."OK, we won't ban your guns...but when you run out of bullets, no more." Like light bulbs.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 12:48 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 04, 2013 12:48 PM (UgFxe)
I used to work at HUD back in the 80s, and I have seen tons of old public housing apartments and low-rent housing that was saturated with layers and layers of lead-based paint, which is commonly eaten by children because it tastes sweet. This is even more damaging to the brain than lead in the air.
I'm also getting interested in theories that women absorb lots of damaging chemicals through their skin in makeup and lotions. My sister went cold turkey off of all skin applications including makeup when she developed severe psoriasis years ago. Her depression slowly cleared up without any medication or therapy. Mine has slowly gotten worse.
Of course, I would frighten dogs and small children if I started going without any makeup or wrinkle creams.
Posted by: rockmom at January 04, 2013 12:49 PM (NYnoe)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 12:49 PM (iO3BG)
I don't know about leaded gasoline and the 60s to 80s crime wave, but I'm now more convinced than ever that the heavy drug use on college campuses of that period caused long term brain damage to our "elite".
Posted by: kbdabear at January 04, 2013 12:49 PM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Lead at January 04, 2013 04:46 PM (a0nis)
He was already stupid when I got there!
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 12:49 PM (XUKZU)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 04, 2013 12:49 PM (V3kRK)
Whether someone was exposed to lead or mistreated as a child or whatever, they are still responsible for the decisions they make.
Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 12:50 PM (Tt6ky)
"One of the things this thread proves is that leftists have corrupted
everything in our culture to the point where we can't believe anything
scientists, teachers, historians say anymore."
Oh...absolutely I agree with this. But that doesn't make everything untrue.
Posted by: eleven at January 04, 2013 12:50 PM (VhqUZ)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 12:50 PM (r2PLg)
Why? Is there some push to start using leaded gas again?
Actually, that's a good question to pose to the whole study: what's the purpose of the study?
Call me jaded and cynical, but I tend to believe that Liberals undertake these kinds of study to prove that it's not the criminal's fault that he's a criminal. "See, he couldn't stop himself! It was the leaded gasoline!" Because once you can establish that the criminal wasn't actually at fault, you can start emptying out prisons and releasing criminals back into the general population.
Which has been a goal of the left since at least the 70s.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 04, 2013 12:50 PM (5DR1j)
Experimentation in this case (due to the miniscule statistical shift) is impractical.
Further study involves what exactly? To what end exactly? Are we seriously considering bringing back leaded fuels? Or allowing lead pollution to substantially rise? We've already answered that question. It's bad for you. Further study on this course is porcupine research. The only value it has is to create a politically acceptable villain for the crime wave of the 60-70s. Given the small statistical shift, no real certainty on how much lead may have affected the crime rates can be had without serious, (and currently unobtainable) scientific rigor.
So my answer is "your data supports no overarching conclusions. Furthermore, continued study is not likely to reveal anything useful."
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 04, 2013 12:50 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 12:50 PM (EWsrI)
Posted by: U.S. Department of Contemporary Findings and Other Academic Certainties at January 04, 2013 12:50 PM (eHIJJ)
Look at it this way, people. If they can pin the bad behavior of populations on the external factor of something like lead, they can pin the same behaviour on guns.
I know this premise isn't logical, but we're talking about leftists here.
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 12:51 PM (X70gw)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:51 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 12:51 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: Rob McNeece at January 04, 2013 12:51 PM (YesJa)
248Oh, no question that lead is the left's new boogey-man.
This is presumably their new go-to answer for black criminality. It's not the shitty culture of the underclass; it's the lead paint!
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 12:51 PM (4u2LN)
---
You're overlooking the lawsuits.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 12:51 PM (XUKZU)
'I don't know about leaded gasoline and the 60s to 80s crime wave, but I'm now more convinced than ever that the heavy drug use on college campuses of that period caused long term brain damage to our "elite".'
What makes you think the heavy drug use ever ended?
Posted by: Mr. Peabody at January 04, 2013 12:52 PM (uGiHE)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 12:52 PM (GFM2b)
Crime Drop: Lead v. Abortion v. Prisons
Or a bit of all? Or that the drop correlates with the rise of Mr. Rogers viewers? That man was a calming influence. From what I hear. I was a Captain Noah kid myself.
Posted by: CJ at January 04, 2013 12:52 PM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Scientist at January 04, 2013 12:52 PM (lreFA)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 04, 2013 12:52 PM (V3kRK)
Posted by: Bookdoc at January 04, 2013 04:05 PM (OmjtN)
______________
Crime declined in the 90s just as the two parent family was declared old skool and unhip. Kinda disproves your theory doesn't it?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 12:52 PM (HDgX3)
Well there are more interesting implications towards it, but generally speaking they all lean policy wise in some way.
I'd hit it at a bigger point though. Namely "what are the limits of science." And as I've stated before, given the sheer numbers of confounding variables in this particular case, we may have reached the limits on what science can tell us. Drawing further conclusions is perhaps dangerous.
(In this case the science tells us that higher atmospheric lead levels appear to correlate with higher crime. Also apparently higher teen pregnancy. Although ballparking the graph it looks like his timing is a bit off on the pregnancy one.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 04, 2013 12:52 PM (5BEp7)
Posted by: joncelli at January 04, 2013 12:52 PM (RD7QR)
everything in our culture to the point where we can't believe anything
scientists, teachers, historians say anymore."
Yes and that's why we should always be skeptical of any claims. But skepticism is NOT the same as out of hand rejection.
And that's what a lot of commenters are doing here: If you don't like the implications of correlation between two factors, dismiss even the possibility of a connection between them.
The left does this a lot and it's not any prettier when it happens on the right either.
Posted by: Mætenloch at January 04, 2013 12:53 PM (XkotV)
I especially trust NOTHING published by our current government.
Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 12:53 PM (53z96)
248Oh, no question that lead is the left's new boogey-man.
Don't forget that cities have funded lead abatement programs for decades.
Posted by: CJ at January 04, 2013 12:53 PM (9KqcB)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:53 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 12:53 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: DAve at January 04, 2013 12:53 PM (XDC0v)
Oh, could somebody help me get my quarter out of the candy machine? I took it off Tim's desk cause I was hungry for a Twix bar.
Posted by: Joe Biden at January 04, 2013 12:54 PM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 12:54 PM (NIZHJ)
"If drinking and driving caused accidents, everyone who drinks and drives would be in an accident."
Pretty much so but it also depends upon the amount ingested. Higher crime rates in cities with higher lead content in the air. Not much crime in smaller cities.
Posted by: harleycowboy at January 04, 2013 12:54 PM (+9AX9)
Posted by: zsasz at January 04, 2013 12:55 PM (HT2Nt)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 12:55 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 12:55 PM (evdj2)
Sam Spade returns
in
L E A D
M I S T
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 04, 2013 12:55 PM (S/WR4)
There are false-positive correlations and there are real correlations, and by the latter I mean correlations that suggest true causality.
Sorry, but with respect, you don't understand correlations. A correlation can be real and yet not reflect a causal relationship. Example: when it rains, the barometric pressure falls. Neither one causes the other; they are consequences of a common cause (a low pressure cell).
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 12:55 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:55 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 12:55 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 12:55 PM (IvVLN)
Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 12:56 PM (+xmn4)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 12:56 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:53 PM (LCRYB)
Nah, we just recognize that this was probably done using government money. (Alternatively, limited resources, we have to direct them towards the best use in general)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 04, 2013 12:56 PM (5BEp7)
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 12:56 PM (cgXOM)
Posted by: Weed at January 04, 2013 12:56 PM (a0nis)
There is no steer manure in cities, and cities have higher crime rates.
Rural areas have steer manure and low crime
so
steer manure prevents crime
it is science
Posted by: Moron #3 at January 04, 2013 12:56 PM (W6iIX)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 12:57 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: Actual New York Times Headline at January 04, 2013 12:57 PM (wwsoB)
I think we turned out just fine.
Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2013 12:57 PM (w3+gB)
Posted by: Shtetl G at January 04, 2013 12:57 PM (L2eC5)
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 12:58 PM (cgXOM)
Crime declined in the 90s just as the two parent family was declared old skool and unhip. Kinda disproves your theory doesn't it?
Er, no. Because you would compare apples to apples. That is, crime among people raised in single-parent homes v. crime among people raised in two-parent homes. Not, crime in the 70s v crime in the 90s.
Posted by: CJ at January 04, 2013 12:58 PM (9KqcB)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 12:58 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Whatev at January 04, 2013 12:58 PM (lreFA)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 04:52 PM (HDgX3)
And what did incarceration look like? Look up prison incarceration. You will see it increased dramatically 14 years after 1964. i.e just about the time that the children of the first batch of "Great Society" kids were reaching puberty.
Yeah, we have more single parent families than ever, but we lock people up more and faster than the 1960s too!
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 12:58 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: DAve at January 04, 2013 12:58 PM (XDC0v)
Otherwise, I'm not sure what the purpose would be of mining criminal statistics and trying to tease out causation/correlation. As someone pointed out upthread, there are enough reasons to reduce childrens' exposure to lead already.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 12:59 PM (5H6zj)
Not necessarily. Stipulating the correlation, the study revolves around child development; high lead environ -> children born with higher lead -> children maturing -> more crime.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 04, 2013 12:59 PM (KDq5l)
Yes, among an incredibly small minority. If only the people who ever got abortions were pro-abortion, then Roe v Wade would have been overturned before the ink was dry on the decision.
I said "popular" not "occurs." It's only popular with the intelligentsia, who tend to view children as a burden, and the eugenics crowd, who tend to see it as a means to control "the undesirables." They're the ones pushing it and doing everything they can to make it accepted.
Even today over 50% of the nation would like there to be more, not fewer, restrictions on abortion. Of that remaining minority, only a minority have even had abortions.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 04, 2013 12:59 PM (5DR1j)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 04, 2013 04:50 PM (0q2P7)
The truth has value in itself. We need to know what actually happened and what the effects were.
Even if it doesn't result in a new government policy. And even if the left may try and abuse it for their own ends.
Posted by: Mætenloch at January 04, 2013 01:00 PM (XkotV)
1989: 14,251,000 crimes population 248M
2010: 10,266.000 crimes population 308M
So on a per capita basis crime declined by 40% in 20 years. That's pretty amazing.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 01:00 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:00 PM (ymJbM)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:00 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:00 PM (5H6zj)
But skepticism is NOT the same as out of hand rejection.
Sure it is. One is just more polite than the other ("Hmmm ... maaaaaybe," vs. "Ah bullshit"). Both constitute a refusal to accept the proposition as true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is a pretty simplistic explanation for the phenomenon, for which many other more plausible explanations exist (e.g., my demographic bulge one above). Until the proponents can disprove the more plausible explanations, theirs should meet with the "Ah bullshit" ... er ... "Hmmm, maaaaybe" response.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:01 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 01:01 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: JDTAY at January 04, 2013 01:01 PM (a0nis)
This is why it's worth reading the comments even up into the 300's.
Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at January 04, 2013 01:01 PM (46pA5)
Posted by: Koolaid at January 04, 2013 01:01 PM (lreFA)
More pirate attacks correlate to higher global temperatures.
Posted by: Kristophr at January 04, 2013 01:01 PM (wYVte)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:01 PM (r2PLg)
I never realized just how violent the 80s were in terms of crime. I grew up in the 80s but I guess I was sheltered from it all in my susburban bubble.
One word: crack.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:01 PM (4u2LN)
here is a study
compare crime rates in mining towns where they actually mine for lead
then compare that to a town that mines for gold, silver, coal what ever the fuck
I'm guessing lead minining towns crime rates are not increased
Posted by: Moron #3 at January 04, 2013 01:02 PM (W6iIX)
They are a green crusader, after all.
That said, I've read articles on lead before and know it only takes very low level to affects a child's brain.
Posted by: Hepcat at January 04, 2013 01:02 PM (IPSPJ)
Posted by: DAve at January 04, 2013 01:02 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 04, 2013 01:02 PM (MPjT8)
Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 01:02 PM (Hz1zc)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:02 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 01:02 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 01:03 PM (+xmn4)
This is why we must ban all bullets! There is lead in bullets!
Posted by: Liberal Group Think, Inc. at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (dC04t)
I am wondering if perhaps this might be a factor in creating such a report. "If lead is too dangerous to allow in the environment, those poor gun nuts will just have to do without! "
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 01:03 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:03 PM (ymJbM)
I should add, the purpose of the lab experiments on lead exposure would be to try to determine safe levels for regulatory purposes.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 05:00 PM (5H6zj)
You'd think, wouldn't you? Current toxicological/ regulatory theology commonly holds that there is no safe level (i.e., no threshold for toxicity) for lots of things.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:03 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: Koolaid at January 04, 2013 01:04 PM (lreFA)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:04 PM (LCRYB)
Even if it doesn't result in a new government policy. And even if the left may try and abuse it for their own ends.
---
The problem is that I suspect the nature of the data is at least as problematic, if not more so, as the data the climate change crowd relies on. So I guess as an academic exercise there might be some merit in assembling an interdisciplinary team of statisticians, social 'scientists,' and the like, but I really would have my doubts about the conclusions. If some private foundation wants to pay for it, fine. But I sure hope NSF or some other govt agency doesn't foot the bill.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:05 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:51 PM (LCRYB)
--------------------------------------------------
Discrimination is not science. To prove this has any credence at all requires the scientific method, not mere association.
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 01:05 PM (X70gw)
The problem is that legitimate inquiry would require rigorous scientific method. This problem (Exactly how much does lead effect crime rate) will never be subject to that level of rigor, simply because
a. It would cost too much.
b. It would require you to deliberately expose people to a substance you knew was harmful in order to obtain meaningful results.
Otherwise you are just stuck making an infinite number of observations, on infinitely complex systems differentiated from each other in numerous and experimentally significant ways and trying to unscramble all of that into miniscule statistical differences.
This is a dead end. Not because we can be certain it isn't true. Because there is no good way to figure out if it is true.
>>Government does not define the sum of my existence and the totality of my aspiration, as it defines liberals" sure do embrace the proposition that "if it's not going to result in a government policy or new law, it's not worth knowing" pretty speedily.
>>> research costs money. If it isn't being privately funded. I'd rather it be useful.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 04, 2013 01:05 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 01:05 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 01:06 PM (IyKYr)
344...Otherwise, I'm not sure what the purpose would be of mining criminal statistics and trying to tease out causation/correlation. As someone pointed out upthread, there are enough reasons to reduce childrens' exposure to lead already.
Exactly, Y-not.
Also...the thing about 'low IQ leads to crime' needs to be confirmed as well.
Which would take looking at the percentages of crimes committed by all IQ levels.
Smart people commit crimes too.
And not all low IQ people are inclined to criminal behavior.
Posted by: wheatie at January 04, 2013 01:06 PM (dC04t)
Jobs program for grant writers/bureaucrats who approve grants.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 01:06 PM (ZKzrr)
No, but it could explain the popularity of leisure suits and disco.
Posted by: mrp at January 04, 2013 01:06 PM (HjPtV)
More people are diagnosed and treated for ADHD (yes, maybe too many) than used to be.
Once people start looking for something in earnest, they find it. And once someone names something, people start looking for it. So a kid who was spacey and energetic in 1960 got smacked upside the head and told to pay attention, but now is "diagnosed" as "having ADHD."
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:06 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: the kid at January 04, 2013 01:06 PM (/b8+5)
---
Not to mention that the real culprit is that favorite bugaboo of the left, Big Oil.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 01:06 PM (XUKZU)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:07 PM (ymJbM)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 01:08 PM (IvVLN)
Just not by central planning.
I, personally, would rather see more studies demonstrating how freedom beats socialism, because that's a truth which is clearly not yet established well enough to be widely accepted, and it should be.
Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 01:08 PM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: Truman North, idol of dozens at January 04, 2013 01:08 PM (I2LwF)
So... why is it worth knowing?
My point is that the ONLY reason I can think of is that it will result in changes to policy, specifically in a push to further water down enforcement of criminal law.
Can you think of another reason?
I believe this way about a lot of things. If you can tell me one practical lesson we can take from this- that we don't already know- then I'm good, I'll happily dig into it with you. But what is being proposed here is policy changes based on unreliable conclusions (for reasons tsrblke has mentioned).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 04, 2013 01:08 PM (5DR1j)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:08 PM (ymJbM)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 01:08 PM (b+8h9)
Sure these assholes are conservative.
Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 01:08 PM (53z96)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 01:08 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:09 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:09 PM (LCRYB)
A direct correlation with the increasing number of congressional manna grants over the same period of time.
Posted by: mrp at January 04, 2013 01:09 PM (HjPtV)
And not all low IQ people are inclined to criminal behavior.
Goddamnit, would people stop saying "all?" We're talking statistics and probability here, we're not talking about something that happens every goddamned time. We're saying "flipping a coin tends to give heads half the time," and people keep saying things that would be equivalent to saying "Well, not every coin toss comes up heads." Yes, that's obviously true, but irrelevant to the point.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:10 PM (4u2LN)
Worth knowing and worth tax monies are different things. Sure, I'd like to know (or have the capacity to know) everything about everything, but assets are finite. Science is bloated with astronomical waste doing "research". Should the NIH jump in on any crackpot idea? No, and it doesn't. And even as it doesn't, it still wastes vast resources and time on crackpot theories. Such is the study of science by definition.
The question by Small Government types is, "Should this government be throwing away borrowed money on this particular study?"
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 04, 2013 01:10 PM (eHIJJ)
More pirate attacks correlate to higher global temperatures.
Posted by: Kristophr at January 04, 2013 05:01 PM (wYVte)
----------------------------------------------
Fucking pirates. Speaking of pirates and heat, does anyone have a Tampa Bay cheerleader pic?
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 01:10 PM (X70gw)
Hey, dumbfuck. He clearly stated that by popular he meant sentiment and advocacy, not practice. He might be wrong to a degree with the first, but abortion advocacy is pretty directly rooted in segments of left-advocacy as a whole, the ones he cited, even.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 01:10 PM (cgXOM)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:09 PM (LCRYB)
Ace,
they have been putting lead in gasoline since at least the 1920's
Posted by: Moron #3 at January 04, 2013 01:10 PM (W6iIX)
Posted by: ontherocks at January 04, 2013 01:10 PM (aZ6ew)
Posted by: the kid at January 04, 2013 01:11 PM (/b8+5)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 01:11 PM (oKVrA)
But it's better to judge an idea on its merits. Otherwise, we're no better than the liberals are.
Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 01:11 PM (Tt6ky)
That's a spectacularly stupid point of view - you should get tested for lead poisoning immediately. I will say this though, you seem very passionate in your desire to resist new information, so you got that going for you I guess.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 01:12 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Truman North, idol of dozens at January 04, 2013 01:12 PM (I2LwF)
No amount of beating the crap out of me ever worked. Now I'm on ADHD meds and I'm noticeably better.
Posted by: Truman North, idol of dozens at January 04, 2013 05:08 PM (I2LwF)
My point was directed to the increasing incidence of the ADHD diagnosis, not to the etiology of the underlying phenomenon, on which I have no opinion.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:12 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 01:12 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:12 PM (ymJbM)
Saying something is scientific is a LOT harder than simply making it the conclusion of a study. And the smaller the thing you are looking for, the more rigorous your method must be at finding it.
The conclusion here is simply not scientifically supported by the study and is merely guessing, in my mind, to make the problem sound significant in order to get funding for more research that also won't prove anything. Scientists do this all the time. They lay siege to the layman with scary or fantastic sounding correlations to try and get funding for their research. If it has no commercial value, than they must make it have political value to keep funding.
I am not afraid of science. I scoff at pretended science, and clear whoring for grant dollars.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 04, 2013 01:13 PM (0q2P7)
Sure it is. One is just more polite than the other ("Hmmm ... maaaaaybe," vs. "Ah bullshit"). Both constitute a refusal to accept the proposition as true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is a prettysimplistic explanation for the phenomenon, for which many other more plausible explanations exist (e.g., my demographic bulge one above). Until the proponents can disprove the more plausible explanations, theirs should meet with the "Ah bullshit" ... er ... "Hmmm, maaaaybe" response.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 05:01 PM (4u2LN)
Uh no. The proper form of skepticism to always take the null hypothesis that a proposition is unproven until well, it is proven. Denying even the possibility that it could be true is rejection - not skepticism.
Posted by: Mætenloch at January 04, 2013 01:13 PM (XkotV)
Posted by: Tantor at January 04, 2013 01:13 PM (659DL)
Posted by: Truman North, idol of dozens at January 04, 2013 01:13 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 04, 2013 01:13 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 01:13 PM (IvVLN)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 01:14 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: the kid at January 04, 2013 01:14 PM (/b8+5)
Which would take looking at the percentages of crimes committed by all IQ levels.
Smart people commit crimes too.
And not all low IQ people are inclined to criminal behavior.
---
And smart people may not get caught as frequently as dumb people.
I suspect the real interest is in violent crime. If so, that could probably be modeled in animals via impulse control studies of some sort. But, boy, that would be a lot of research and even then you're still just trying to determine what levels of lead are safe for humans. I don't know how feasible that is.
I suppose the other thing that could be done is an analysis of brains from violent criminals. Is the theory that the lead stays in the brain tissue? If so, it should be possible to image it even in live bodies.
Maybe you'd find that violent criminals accumulate more lead than normal people, but I don't think you could say that they had more exposure to lead. It could just be that they have ultra-sensitive receptors for lead or something like that. Not sure what the public policy outcome would be.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:14 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 04, 2013 01:15 PM (jucos)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:15 PM (ymJbM)
Posted by: mrp at January 04, 2013 05:06 PM (HjPtV)
-------------------------------------------
Don't knock discos. It was the best place to find a good lay.
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 01:15 PM (X70gw)
Ace,
they have been putting lead in gasoline since at least the 1920's
Posted by: Moron #3 at January 04, 2013 05:10 PM (W6iIX)
A point seemingly lost on people who are speculating that it only took affect decades later.
People are naturally bad unless you TEACH them to be good. No fathers, no lesson!
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 01:15 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: 42756 at January 04, 2013 01:15 PM (i8c5b)
I'm going to toss this out,
maybe the increase in crime ir related to the increase in youngsters as in the baby boom 'youths' working through the demographics
Posted by: Moron #3 at January 04, 2013 01:15 PM (W6iIX)
In fairness, if your argument is "this opens an avenue for further study." Yeah that's true. But the correlation has been noted and the biochemists and physiologists will now take over to tease out the effect of various chemicals on the brain.
Except in this case Lead's actually pretty well studied as far as brain development goes. Which is what makes this somewhat interesting as a "why did they do this?" sorta thing.
We've studied the living crap out of lead and brain development, which has lead to a pretty universal elimination of lead from daily life (except for a few things like computers that still need it.) You can't buy lead fishing weights, lead ammunition is getting harder to find. Good, we've sussed out the harmful effects of lead. I'm not entirely sure what the goal is trying to go backwards in time to tie it in any fashion to the crimewave though. First of all, as I've said, it stretches the boundaries of science impossibly far. Secondly retrospective research is shaky to begin with, why stir up more of it with no prospective goal in mind?
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 04, 2013 01:15 PM (5BEp7)
Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 01:16 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:16 PM (r2PLg)
I think one of the reasons people are jumping on this with both feet is the fear that the Left will use this explanation as The Sole Explanation for Crime and then use it to discredit other explanations for the decline in crime.
Not me. I'm jumping on it because, as a scientist, I detest shitty pop science, of which this seems to be a prime example. I hate hearing sanctimonious moronic drivel from Professor Oprah Winfrey, or Dr. Deepak Chopra. Show me hard data, or kiss my ass.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:16 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 01:16 PM (GFM2b)
---
Yeah, John Noble, who plays Dr. Walter Bishop on Fringe, hosts a show on the Science Channel called Dark Matters, Twisted But True. They examine unfortunate science. They did a show on the guy that added lead to gasoline and indicated that he may have fibbed about a thing or two in his testimony to congress. He later died of what may have been a lead related disease. Dark Matters is a tad purple for my taste but is pretty interesting.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 01:16 PM (XUKZU)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 01:17 PM (IvVLN)
Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 01:18 PM (EWsrI)
maybe the increase in crime ir related to the increase in youngsters as in the baby boom 'youths' working through the demographics
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
This is the obvious explanation for most of the phenomenon. We can get more exotic later.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:18 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 01:18 PM (ZKzrr)
The end of the article ends with a call to spend $20 Billion a year scrubbing all traces of lead from old homes and affected neighborhoods.
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 01:18 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at January 04, 2013 01:18 PM (pmsMR)
Does that mean every kid exposed to lead will become a violent criminal? No. Does it mean that lead exposure is the one and only explanation for crime rates? No. But to dismiss even the mere possibility is obstinate, kneejerk stupidity.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 01:19 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:12 PM (ymJbM)
-----------------------------------------------
I knew a nurse who named her son William Rubin.
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 01:19 PM (X70gw)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 01:20 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 04, 2013 04:38 PM (wrrFE)
Heh
Posted by: Ronster at January 04, 2013 01:20 PM (JgkPs)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:20 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at January 04, 2013 05:18 PM (pmsMR)
Yup.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 01:20 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:20 PM (r2PLg)
---
^This.
If the Ford Foundation or some place like that wants to fund study into old crime statistics, fine. I still would have my doubts about the results, but I'm an experimentalist at heart anyway.
Certainly from a biomedical front it's worthwhile to understand the effects of environmental pollutants on brain function as well. I'm sure NIH is funding a lot of that already.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:21 PM (5H6zj)
389"Smart people commit crimes too.
And not all low IQ people are inclined to criminal behavior."
i don't think people are disputing this
Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 05:08 PM (60GaT)
Maybe not here...
But isn't this one of the 'conclusions' of the article that Ace has posted about?
That there is a link between 'low IQ's and crime rates'?
Were IQ's tested for all the criminals that made up the crime rate statistics for the "60's - 80's Crimewave" ?
The article seems to imply that lower IQ's, resulting from lead exposure, was a cause of higher crime rates.
But where are the statistics for the IQ-testing of all those criminals in that time period?
Posted by: wheatie at January 04, 2013 01:21 PM (dC04t)
Posted by: georgeofthedesert at January 04, 2013 01:22 PM (Eq2MX)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:22 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 01:22 PM (Hz1zc)
Kid born in 1946 was 20 in 1966 when the crime wave took off.
Kid born in 1964 was 26 in 1990 when crime was at its peak and someone born in 1946 was 44.
As the kids born 46-64 started getting older, crime started declining. By 2000 the 1946 kid was 54, well past his crime spree days. The kid born in 1964 was 36, also past peak crime days.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 01:23 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 01:23 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 01:23 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:23 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: ManBearPig at January 04, 2013 01:24 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 04, 2013 01:24 PM (feFL6)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 01:24 PM (b+8h9)
There's a bunch of data suggesting that "reforming" criminals isn't very effective at all, but keeping them in long enough to age them into their 50's is.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 04, 2013 01:24 PM (hc3eM)
Blind to the ways of mankind
God is smiling on you but he's frowning too
Because only God knows what you'll go through
You'll grow in the ghetto, living second rate
And your eyes will sing a song of deep hate
The places you're playin', where you stay
Looks like one great big alley way
You'll admire all the number book takers
Thugs, pimps, pushers and the big money makers
Driving big cars, spending twenties and tens
And you wanna grow up to be just like them, huh,
Smugglers, scrambles, burglars, gamblers
Pickpockets, peddlers even panhandlers
You say: "I'm cool, I'm no fool!"
But then you wind up dropping out of high school
Now you're unemployed, all non-void
Walking 'round like you're Pretty Boy Floyd
Turned stickup kid, look what you've done did
Got sent up for a eight year bid
Now your manhood is took and you're a may tag
Spend the next two years as a undercover fag
Being used and abused to serve like hell
Till one day you was found hung dead in a cell
It was plain to see that your life was lost
You was cold and your body swung back and forth
But now your eyes sing the sad, sad song
Of how you lived so fast and died so young
Posted by: Shtetl G at January 04, 2013 01:24 PM (L2eC5)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:25 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:25 PM (5H6zj)
OT: So mad I could scream: On Big Hollywood, there's a story about the asshole who's producing "Killing Lincoln" comparing JW Booth to Tea Partiers, saying they believe(d) the same things.
Booth was the spoilt, temperamental, slutty actor, 3rd son, of a great acting family. Alone among his sibs, he supported the Confederate cause because he was an elitest snob who needed to look down on people, and he HATED blacks in a virulent, passionate manner. He came up with all sorts of harebrained schemes to "help" the Confederates, all of which would-haha-increase his personal fame. He did NOT bother to sign up to fight, possibly because he liked his slutty women, his fancy clothes, and the pampering he got as an actor too much to slum it with soldiers. One of his key motivations for shooting Lincoln was so that he'd be celebrated and idolized forever as a big hero. Of course, his stupid escape plan was so stupid he didn't manage to escape to anywhere but a friggin' swamp, and was then killed by a Union soldier.
Stupid goddamn Ho-wooders, rewriting history all the goddam time! I'd like to slap his arrogant yap.
Posted by: Quint&Jessel, Sea of Bly, Azof, UK at January 04, 2013 01:25 PM (7v5Ct)
The argument regarding the correlation between IQ and criminality is simple, and compelling. Everybody wants things - sex, objects, whatever. The more intelligent people can figure out how to get them without running afoul of the law (or if they do, not getting caught).
The dumb asses can't figure that out, and don't have the brain power to foresee consequences clearly, to construct plans, or to delay gratification (foreseeing a good consequence). ("I want X, so if I get a job, save my money, I can buy X in N months.")
They're more like children; they see something they want, they grab it. They live in the minute. It's easy to see how they'd be more likely to commit crimes. Want to bed that gal? Wine her, dine her, romance her, hope to talk her into it? Nah. Rape her right here and now.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:25 PM (4u2LN)
how about the crime wave linked to the Warren court?
or
how about the crime wave linked to the increase in fatherless households?
Posted by: Moron #3 at January 04, 2013 01:26 PM (W6iIX)
Posted by: © Sponge at January 04, 2013 01:26 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:26 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2013 01:26 PM (LVtr+)
This is just to difficult to subject to a real study. You talk about the 20s and the lack of lead fuel fumes and fail to mention industrial processes that would make you wince today.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 04, 2013 01:27 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:27 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:27 PM (r2PLg)
---
They put lead in pizza?
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 05:24 PM (XUKZU)
_________________________
Speaking of that fat fuck, he posted some rant today about walking. All fine and good, walking is good for you. But then he went on some weird tangent how dieting is all part of the evil capitalist plan to keep you afraid. He took 6 paragraphs to basically say I am a fat fuck, I tried all the diets but I am now happy being 400 lbs. So fuck you!
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 01:27 PM (HDgX3)
---
Try drinking about two ounces of liquid lead a day and take another look in about a month.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 01:27 PM (XUKZU)
Especially since the conclusion was "MOAR GUBMINT MONEES!!"
(If you have one bucket that contains 2 gallons and another bucket that contains 7 gallons, how many buckets do you have?)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 01:28 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:28 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 01:28 PM (NIZHJ)
completely asinine underlying article. What fueled the crime waves of
the 60's, 70's and 80's were, in no particular order: blah, blah, preconceived notions and talking points, blah, etc.
So, "your study is bullshit opinion disguised as science, what really happened is my opinion supported by what I'm pretty sure is right!" Jesus people, is it within the realm of possibility that you could ever be wrong about anything? Could that happen?
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 01:29 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:26 PM (LCRYB)
why aren't places where they mine for lead, where throughout history have had high levels of lead in the enviroment
why don't they have high crime rates?
Posted by: Moron #3 at January 04, 2013 01:29 PM (W6iIX)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 01:29 PM (IvVLN)
---
Michael Moore: Expert in Everything or, as we intellectuals call it, everythingology.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 01:29 PM (XUKZU)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:29 PM (ymJbM)
Fuck that noise.......
Posted by: © Sponge at January 04, 2013 01:29 PM (UK9cE)
-----
Ace,
You cannot determine the answers to how the brain functions using decades old crime statistics and fuzzy environmental data on atmospheric lead.
Brain is worth studying, but you need to do it in a lab.
I'm all for dissecting the shit out of criminals' brains or experimenting on chimps (honestly more for the former than the latter), but that's not what this study seems to be pointing towards.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:30 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:30 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 01:30 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 01:30 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 05:28 PM (NIZHJ)
So is NIZHJ a troll?
Because its style and content is constantly twigging my trollmeter.
Posted by: Mætenloch at January 04, 2013 01:31 PM (XkotV)
That childhood lead exposure can lead to stunted brain development and associated behavioral problems isn't some New Age theory. It's fact. It's been documented over and over again.
At whacking great levels of lead.
In 1970 the average person had 30 micrograms/dL of lead in their blood (IIRC). Today, if you are found to have 10 micrograms/dL you're immediately put on chelation therapy as dangerously intoxicated with lead.
Bottom line: lead exposure today for almost everybody is almost certainly way below the threshold level that results in serious problems.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 01:32 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2013 01:32 PM (wAng0)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 01:32 PM (IvVLN)
Okay. I can't stand it any longer. I'm going in. Wish me luck 'RON Universe.
AN Ode to AtC. (And all ettes out there really)
Alex the Chick. Will you marry me ?
I just Love your Rapist wit and maniacal sense of humor. Oh, and the acid tongue is just the clincher.(Are related to EOJ)
Are you anywhere near "Not so Merry" LAND ?
Do you like older guys ? I'm 51.
Do you like Italian **********long awkward pause********* Food ? I'm a gourmet cook.
I have wavy brown hair with about 2 gray hairs. It gets long and you can run your fingers through it.
Just like Giorgio from AA. I'm a big fan of the show BTW. (it can be our Kung Fu tv show from movie Office Space)
I'm six foot tall 210 lbs of mostly solid muscle. There are some beer deposits.
I play center field and bat third for my Over 40 baseball team.
I relace gloves so i have a lot of leather laces. you can take 3 and braid them into a ...well, you get the picture.
You know, they say Liquor might be quicker, but I say Leather is better.
Now I know you've said you were a tiny thing, 60 inches tall ? I know it might not be practical, but i don't care what people
do, provided they do it in bed.
And you can keep your girlfriends. When Dita and CH come over I'll just, *cough* turn on camcorder and go for a
long walk *cough* * spit*
I have a Ph. D in neck, back and feet rubbing.
I know you like your tea me Lady, but I work for a huge liquor distributor, and you haven't lived until you've had your
coffee/espresso with Godiva White Chocolate Liquer. BUTTER ! And I'm tight with the breakage/unsaleable Lady.
wink wink.
I have no cats or dogs, so if we go away, I won't have to worry about boarding. I do have this huge, hairy,
black tarrantula, with Homeric fangs. He's not much trouble, but it's the most extraordinary thing. i don't know how he does it,
but he keeps escaping from his terrarium. When you least expect it, you look up, and there he is. meh.
I'll leave you with this. Rent the Movie 'Dancing at the Blue Iguana'. It's about the life of strippers.
Darryl Hannah as 'Angel'(ok A-cup) Sandra Oh (GREAT A-cup). THe reason I recommend it is because it has in it, the Greatest set of
C-cups EVAH !! The girl who goes to a fellow strippers place after boyfriend beat her up. Heh, the stripper is in the middle of a dominatrix
session. Something I picture you would be rather good at from what i've read. (insert Dr Evil laugh)
Oh, and on your wedding night you will receive a riding crop with a diamond encrusted handle.
And if your ever really, really blue just youtube 'dancin in the streets' Mick Jagger/ David Bowie. If that's
isn't the Gheyst thing ever, nothing is.
Posted by: Eye Tie at January 04, 2013 01:32 PM (bvqC9)
Posted by: Caustic at January 04, 2013 01:32 PM (/b8+5)
Chris Matthews before/after malaria in 2002? Not joking either. IMO he was just someone fun to disagree with before, but after that he just flipped to the cartoon side.
Posted by: Brian in New Orleans at January 04, 2013 01:32 PM (TUl/a)
In an enjoyable way?
Husband expressed an interest in seeing it, but if it's bad (and we are not Tom Cruise fans) then I'm dragging the poor schmuck to see Cirque du Soleil's movie.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:32 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 01:33 PM (EWsrI)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 04, 2013 01:34 PM (46pA5)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 01:34 PM (b+8h9)
Was that the conclusion of the study or the article that was written about the study?
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 01:34 PM (+lsX1)
That makes all the sense in the world. Make paint edible and all this goes away, right?
Posted by: © Sponge at January 04, 2013 01:34 PM (UK9cE)
Welcome aboard!
I think - and someone can correct me here if I've lost track of people's stories - AtC is interested in ladies.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:34 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:34 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2013 01:35 PM (w3+gB)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:35 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:35 PM (ymJbM)
why not take samples from actual criminals in jail and see what their lead levels are and compare?
?
Posted by: Moron #3 at January 04, 2013 01:36 PM (W6iIX)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 01:36 PM (IvVLN)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:36 PM (LCRYB)
Couldn't you just have saved us all the trouble of attempting to read that and joined eHarmony or something?
Posted by: © Sponge at January 04, 2013 01:37 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 01:37 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:37 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 04, 2013 01:37 PM (46pA5)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 01:37 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 05:34 PM (5H6zj)
------------------------------------------------
And Heatherradish is a guy.
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 01:37 PM (X70gw)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:38 PM (LCRYB)
Getting closer, Ace. Guns, lead, gun ranges.
Posted by: mrp at January 04, 2013 01:38 PM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 01:38 PM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Karusky at January 04, 2013 01:38 PM (dO4L7)
It's cool that your halfway house lets you guys have a softball team.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 01:38 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 05:28 PM (ZKzrr)
1
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 01:39 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: The Lobby for Lead at January 04, 2013 01:39 PM (/b8+5)
Where there's drugs, there's always serious people on the supply side willing to kill over them, and users on the demand side willing to rob other people for the money to buy them.
The US crime rate spiked during prohibition.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 04, 2013 01:39 PM (hc3eM)
Posted by: Charles "Paintchips" Manson at January 04, 2013 01:39 PM (4S7hN)
Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 01:40 PM (X70gw)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:40 PM (ymJbM)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 01:40 PM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: John Stark Dark at January 04, 2013 01:40 PM (0JB89)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 04, 2013 01:40 PM (46pA5)
the UK had a fairly low crime rate for the longest time even during the time they were using the same leaded gasoline and stopped using it. Yet their crime rate, especially violent crime rate has been going up since the mid 90's. Some might claim that it is now starting to fall, however that is because police are so overwhelmed, that they no longer put in a report for simple theft and other non-injury crimes. Otherwise the crime rate would be much higher. Yet this is without any lead poisoning. Australia is having the same issue as well.
So why is there a decrease in crime here while those countries are having the opposite? There are actually several traceable reasons why, all with varying degrees of responsibility. One part is the baby boomer generation finally reaching the ages of early 20's when they are most likely to commit crimes. That generation though would span from about the 60's to the 80's. But crime rates really didn't start coming down until the late 90's. So what happened between the 60's and 90's? The war on poverty happened, with huge amounts of welfare that broke up much of the family structure especially in the black areas. Gangs were a natural result of this lost family structure.
So what caused the reduction in crime rates starting in the late 90's? Two factors, welfare reform and tougher sentencing of crimes, especially the 3 strikes law. It's interesting to see gun-banning type of people miss the point, that as the crime rate has gone down, the gun ownership rate has been going up, more so with Obama.
Posted by: Citizen Journalist at January 04, 2013 01:41 PM (wpkYX)
2, if these a fully self actualized content buckets with high self esteem.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 04, 2013 01:41 PM (hc3eM)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 04, 2013 01:41 PM (feFL6)
So is understanding the lady parts. I don't even think the ladies understand the lady parts.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2013 01:42 PM (69Mdf)
Not true at all.
Lead and lead compounds are very persistent. It doesn't just go away. Places with high lead concentrations in the 70's are still likely to have high lead concentrations today.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 01:44 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 04, 2013 01:44 PM (46pA5)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 01:44 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: Eye Tie at January 04, 2013 05:32 PM (bvqC9)
Welcome.
But I don't think I would mention the pet Tarantula.
Alexthechick is not fond of spiders.
Posted by: wheatie at January 04, 2013 01:45 PM (dC04t)
Posted by: John Stark Dark at January 04, 2013 01:46 PM (0JB89)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:46 PM (r2PLg)
In 1978 lead paint was banned. It would be interesting to see kids born 0-5 years before and 0-5 years after and how they stack up in education, IQ, crime levels, etc.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 01:47 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 01:47 PM (EWsrI)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:47 PM (LCRYB)
The widespread availability birth control fueled 99% of it, with access to abortion being a rounding error of the problem. It would have happened regardless of Roe vs Wade, especially since that decision didn't come until the 1973 when it had already been in full swing.
Despite people overwhelmingly wanting abortion legal, the procedure itself has never been viewed positively by anything more than a sick sliver of the electorate. How many women have proudly told you they had an abortion? It's still viewed about the same as adultery, even in these secular times.
Posted by: McAdams at January 04, 2013 01:47 PM (Sp8J7)
Because measuring blood lead levels when they're a 20 year old criminal doesn't tell you what their lead levels were when they were a 2 year old kid.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 01:48 PM (SY2Kh)
I know him, and even though he's pretty far Left he's a very good researcher and he began studying this possibility around 15 years or so ago. I read quite a bit of the work and the stats seemed very sound.
It also appears [from memory] that the important 'exposure' variable is to males under 3 years of age or so.
The correlation was very decent and the equations were quite significant. I also remember that they allowed for other intervening variables and still found an effect.
Posted by: JorgXMckie at January 04, 2013 01:49 PM (290l2)
Because all the lead paint magically disappeared after it was banned, right?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 01:50 PM (SY2Kh)
Yet if I put up a post about Lott's "more guns, less crime" statistical analyses there would be hoseannas ringing from post 1 to post 400.
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:36 PM (LCRYB)
---
I wouldn't be one of them, but I'm somewhat RINO-y on that topic.
Your point about these sorts of suggestive studies/correlations is valid, but I still think there are a lot of problems with this sort of study. As with the climate change studies, they are relying on old data from multiple sources. For example, they'd have to have lead levels in the air from some sort of monitoring stations near the populations they're studying, but who's to say that all of those stations were monitored equally well or were of equal technological quality? Same thing with their crime statistics. They'd be from different agencies and likely to define criminal activities differently. Then there's the issue of arrests vs convictions vs uncaught crimes.
So basically this study has one basic hook as I see it: that lead exposure might cause criminality (defined however they define it). I'm not even sure if that's novel. A quick check suggests that's already known: "Lead Exposure In Children Affects Brain And Behavior." http://tinyurl.com/2zr9v2 Of course, that still doesn't prove that it was lead from gasoline that led to increased crime rates.
At the end of the day, I am concerned that our society/govt is quick to use incomplete or flawed science to develop public policy. They want quick fixes to issues that take decades to understand.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:50 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 01:51 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:51 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 01:51 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: The Lobby for Lead at January 04, 2013 01:52 PM (/b8+5)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:52 PM (LCRYB)
Because measuring blood lead levels when they're a 20 year old criminal doesn't tell you what their lead levels were when they were a 2 year old kid.
---
Do you know if the thought is that the lead accumulates in the brain? If so, couldn't a PET scan or something like that detect it?
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 01:53 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:54 PM (ymJbM)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2013 01:55 PM (bxiXv)
When I was a kid we couldn't afford the bread with extra iron, so my mom bought the kind with extra lead.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2013 01:56 PM (69Mdf)
Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 01:56 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 04, 2013 01:57 PM (feFL6)
Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 01:59 PM (ymJbM)
I do not believe this is now, or has ever been, a high crime area. I could be wrong, though, as I have no stats. I just have spent lots of time in the region and it never struck me as a problem spot.
Now lead is in guns, and gun ranges require all ammo be jacketed, because of lead exposure. Evil guns, evil ammo. Criminals and guns. Use a gun, you turn criminal, because, well, lead. See how this works? Don't mean to be a jaded cynic, but these leftists always have an agenda. Always. Ok, jaded cynic, I am.
Posted by: Derak at January 04, 2013 01:59 PM (lkjWK)
But put it under the microscope, they must. They don't just look for a statistical aberration. They must act on it with actual bench work and not end on a statistical data point. You acknowledge most of this but don't carry it out to the ultimate conclusion Y-not stated.
What we have in the study is speculation shrouded in statistics with no actual science being done. It's a mathematical exercise as opposed to biological/biochemical study. Unless and until bench work is done with real members part of the study group, it's a sociological/correlation study.
Next, should such a study be financed at this point by taxpayers of a broke country? Since lead in the gasoline isn't an acute problem now, is it worth the investment? And is this a push study to further (questionable) future policy or is it a real study to just know what is knowable?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 04, 2013 01:59 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: 70's child -- exposed to Lead and Fluffernutter, but has committed no crime. at January 04, 2013 02:00 PM (0JB89)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 02:00 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 02:02 PM (r2PLg)
I do not believe this is now, or has ever been, a high crime area. I could be wrong, though, as I have no stats. I just have spent lots of time in the region and it never struck me as a problem spot.
Posted by: Derak at January 04, 2013 05:59 PM (lkjWK)
________________
I ski there a lot. Shit, I'm gonna turn into a criminal now.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 02:03 PM (HDgX3)
Ace,
There's more (by volume) lead & other heavy metals released by burning coal than gasoline (by a wide margin), and others pointing out the volume of lead additive are correct as the volume per gallon was many, many times greater in the early use than later.
Oh, and the researcher has dates wrong, too. And ignores other nations' experiences.
Other than that, sure...
Posted by: Jess1 at January 04, 2013 02:03 PM (lbiWb)
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/126/1/5.full
If so, then the next step would be to do brain scans. I'm pretty sure CAT scans would work since mammography can detect calcium deposits.
But you'd still be unable to determine how the criminals were exposed to the lead.
Honestly, I don't know what they are looking for here. Obviously the lead exposure (if relevant) is not solely causative of criminal activity since many people who weren't criminals were also exposed.
Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 02:04 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 02:05 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 02:05 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at January 04, 2013 02:05 PM (SSWdi)
Posted by: Chicagorefugee at January 04, 2013 02:07 PM (MbXOQ)
You obviously didn't read the article or the paper, the study was applied to many countries, all with the same results. Take your blinders off for five minutes and read the article, you don't have to agree with the policy prescriptions of the MJ writer to appreciate the work done by the author of the study.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 02:11 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 06:03 PM (HDgX3)
Hey!! That's my turf! I've been skiing there since Asarco pumped massive arsenic into the air and killed off all the trees below 4000'. Since they had massive berms of black slag lining miles of freeway. What a paradise!
You and I should have been on the crime spree of the century together.
Posted by: Derak at January 04, 2013 02:12 PM (lkjWK)
Well if you're unaware, it doesn't exist. Case closed.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 02:15 PM (SY2Kh)
Other than that, sure...
You didn't actually read the article, did you?
He didn't go into detail, but they did look at other countries.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 02:17 PM (SY2Kh)
I don't believe it accumulates in the brain, but does cause brain development problems. You might be able to detect such problems with a scan, but you couldn't know that childhood lead exposure was the cause.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 02:20 PM (SY2Kh)
As the article discusses: "A team of researchers at the University of Cincinnati has been following a group of 300 children for more than 30 years and recently performed a series of MRI scans that highlighted the neurological differences between subjects who had high and low exposure to lead during early childhood."
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 02:21 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 04, 2013 02:23 PM (feFL6)
Posted by: Arbalest at January 04, 2013 02:25 PM (/kkxJ)
Posted by: sanity at January 04, 2013 02:26 PM (RVjIg)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 02:29 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Caustic at January 04, 2013 02:32 PM (/b8+5)
If you hadn't taken the tame to regale us with the story of your impressive IQ I would have thought you were kind of a hack, but now I know better, so thanks for that. Say, did you read any of the studies (I think there are four quoted in the article)? Because accounting for demographic changes would be kind of a basic thing you would expect someone doing this type of research would think about right? Pretty basic.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 02:38 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Gerry at January 04, 2013 02:44 PM (dVLqv)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 04, 2013 02:49 PM (feFL6)
Posted by: freeTibet with purchase of equal or greater value Tibet at January 04, 2013 02:49 PM (quLHy)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 03:20 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Jess1 at January 04, 2013 04:05 PM (lbiWb)
Not to beat Schrödinger's dead cat any further, but note too that the FBI stats on homicide offending show a decided peak in 1994, 19 years after TE lead ban in the US. Also note that this peak occured in California where TE lead was banned even earlier...
Note that the Black Female offender rate peaked @ 1980, dropped for the intervening decades, but is now on the rise since 2003...
But hey, what does the Fed know anyway...http://tinyurl.com/bjq99va
Oh, and TE lead gas was still on the market in Eastern France & SE (Schwabia) Germany in 2000. That high violent crime rate there is, um...le taux de criminalité élevée est mauvais
Or something along those lines.
Posted by: Jess1 at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (lbiWb)
Posted by: Jess1 at January 04, 2013 04:35 PM (lbiWb)
Posted by: aDub at January 04, 2013 04:57 PM (haGfu)
Posted by: Avi at January 05, 2013 04:32 PM (7f0Xt)
Posted by: jbarntt at January 05, 2013 05:07 PM (UNFot)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2889 seconds, 736 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 12:00 PM (b1VIZ)