Did Leaded Gasoline Fuel the 60s-80s Crimewave?

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 03:58 PM



Comments

1 Do the wave.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 04:00 PM (b1VIZ)

2 Nope. It was the Brown Acid.

Posted by: uterus cannon at January 04, 2013 04:00 PM (3ZtZW)

3 Next they gonna tell me limes cause lyme disease.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 04:01 PM (b1VIZ)

4 Correlation does not equal causation.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 04:02 PM (5PkZK)

5 Hahahahahahahahah! Wait...what?

Posted by: Tommy Boy at January 04, 2013 04:02 PM (K+mtQ)

6 i don't like this cuz it doesn't fit in with my Decline of Western Civilization thesis

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 04:02 PM (60GaT)

7 There's probably a lot of truth to this correlation. There's a legitimate case to be made for banning things that can cause harm to humans. The problem is that it's overused, and it's hard to say where to draw the line.

Posted by: joncelli at January 04, 2013 04:03 PM (RD7QR)

8 I don't know what started the wave, but according to Freakonomics guys it was abortion that stopped it.

Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at January 04, 2013 04:03 PM (T/L2Z)

9
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 04:03 PM (zgHLA)

10 Don't some countries still use leaded gas? Look at their crime patterns.

Posted by: EC Works For Dick Jones....DICK JONES!!!! at January 04, 2013 04:04 PM (GQ8sn)

11 Just finished reading the same piece. Very interesting but almost too simple an explanation to be true.

Curious, does Japan have a history of lead poisoning?

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 04:04 PM (UypUQ)

12

Testing my D3 levels after moving from Cali to the harsh northeast showed a major drop, to almost none. I never thought the supplements would work, but they do. They fight off depression and lethargy (hibernating).

Posted by: tgibeachf at January 04, 2013 04:04 PM (LpQbZ)

13 8 damn utilitarians

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 04:04 PM (60GaT)

14 Another 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.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 04:04 PM (53z96)

15 Blindness is caused from a lack of Vitamin See.

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 04, 2013 04:04 PM (v9Cj5)

16 Correlation, while interesting, does not prove causation. There's a huge leap being made here, that shouldn't be made without more evidence.

Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 04:04 PM (Tt6ky)

17 Correlation does not equal causation.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 04:02 PM (5PkZK)

^^ThisAlso:
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 04:05 PM (5BEp7)

18 ahhhh. I see. That's why Union Thugs use lead pipes. Lethality.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 04:05 PM (b1VIZ)

19 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 04:05 PM (3ZtZW)

20 8
I don't know what started the wave, but according to Freakonomics guys it was abortion that stopped it.

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 04:05 PM (RD7QR)

21 Why do you ask if I huffed alot of gas fumes back then?

Posted by: Tommy Boy at January 04, 2013 04:05 PM (I88Jc)

22
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 04:05 PM (zgHLA)

23 Did anyone happen to check the correlation between crime and the government sponsored decline of the two-parent family? Libs always want a chemical cause so they can ban something to make it all better.

Posted by: Bookdoc at January 04, 2013 04:05 PM (OmjtN)

24 On schizophrenia...it ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Posted by: jeanne at January 04, 2013 04:05 PM (GdalM)

25 Oh ---- wait a sec here....

What will ethanol cause? GO-!

Posted by: uterus cannon at January 04, 2013 04:06 PM (3ZtZW)

26 I thought the crime wave also tracked with the age cohort most likely to commit crimes.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 04:06 PM (evdj2)

27 http://tinyurl.com/b3nwg8m

Posted by: jeanne at January 04, 2013 04:06 PM (GdalM)

28 Crime rates rose dramatically in the '60s through the '80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early '90s.

Lead poisoning from a .357 mag tends to do that.
Here in Texas we call that "adding bleach to the gene pool".

Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 04:06 PM (GFM2b)

29 The brain, being the most complicated organ, would I think naturally be
the one most susceptible to bugs and glitches caused by small things.



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 04:06 PM (QKKT0)

30 Back on topic-- the article does do state-by-state correlations, so it's it's at least not obviosuly hooey.

Posted by: Lance McCormick at January 04, 2013 04:06 PM (zgHLA)

31 I deserve some of the credit.

Posted by: Midnight Bassetball at January 04, 2013 04:07 PM (v9Cj5)

32
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 04:07 PM (/D/u1)

33 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


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 at January 04, 2013 04:07 PM (KDq5l)

34 There are a lot of urban areas with heavy traffic with very little crime. So not even all of the correlation is there.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 04:07 PM (53z96)

35 Correlation doesn't prove causation. . .
But this certainly is interesting.

Posted by: looking closely at January 04, 2013 04:07 PM (PwGfd)

36 And legal/increased abortions in the 70's 80's dropped crime in the 90's...

There's a lot of questionable correlations like these..

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 04, 2013 04:08 PM (f9c2L)

37 Does lead really drip a person's IQ that much? Kinda scary if true.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 04:08 PM (UypUQ)

38


But, yet, the envirowhackjobs threw cancer bombs at us with the mercury-filled, cancer causing CFL light bulbs.

While destroying the nation's incandescent light bulb industry.

Posted by: tgibeachf at January 04, 2013 04:08 PM (LpQbZ)

39 The Latin word for Plumbing is he same as the word for Lead.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:09 PM (NIZHJ)

40 many coinciding events and phenomena in life, there are

Posted by: Yoda, stoned on jimson weed again at January 04, 2013 04:09 PM (Dll6b)

41 14

yeah someone as far left as Drum probably still has certain issues with the whole '90s-era crackdown on crime (that happened to work)

i can't say anything definitive on this. even if there's truth though i'm always wary of this type of thinking cuz it feeds into the liberal thought process where wherever culture's going is fine and all problems are simply government policy issues.

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 04:09 PM (60GaT)

42 I think this also explains the rise and decline of bad hair styles and god aweful fashion designs.

Posted by: dananjcon at January 04, 2013 04:09 PM (jvd3N)

43 I have a better and more obvious theory. Making the father unnecessary to the survival of offspring insured his absence.

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 04:09 PM (bb5+k)

44 Anything else correlate? Birth rates? Inflation? TV antennas? One other example of a correlation would be all it would take to destroy the argument from correlation, unless there is a causal link that makes sense (e.g., there is more to saying lung cancer is caused by smoking than mere correlation).

Posted by: Bud Norton at January 04, 2013 04:09 PM (6cOMd)

45 the crime wave was caused by the post WWII baby boom. As birth rates have declined, so has crime. As the boomers age out, they commit less or no crime. Its population demographics. Its always been the case

Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 04:09 PM (Dnbau)

46 It's never any one thing, but usually a combination of things.


Same with Rome falling.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 04:09 PM (oKVrA)

47 I think much of the decrease in crime in that era came about because of the rise in birth control or abortion. Just think of the types of people that get abortions and what kind of kids they would be breeding.

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 04:09 PM (Sp8J7)

48 Periodic chart. Lead = Pb

Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 04:10 PM (b1VIZ)

49 remember me?

Posted by: power lines and cancer ( esp in Long Island ) at January 04, 2013 04:10 PM (Dll6b)

50 What will ethanol cause? GO-!

Posted by: uterus cannon at January 04, 2013 04:06 PM (3ZtZW)


Ruined engines?

Posted by: Tami at January 04, 2013 04:10 PM (X6akg)

51 I don't know. Back when I was a teenager in the 70's I used to pump leaded gas into about 1,000 cars a day, and my crime rate was zero.

I think the major reason that crime rates declined was that more prisons got built, and the criminals spent the next decade or two cooling off.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 04, 2013 04:10 PM (feFL6)

52
The Biden wave, on the other hand, is likely due to the long-term effects ofleaded paint and uterine alcohol.

Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 04:10 PM (cgXOM)

53 Interesting theory but probably a correlation/causation error. Most large urban centers are still hellholes of crime and lead content in the air is far less than it ever was.

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 04:10 PM (x0g8a)

54 I thought it was eating paint chips....now i'm confused.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 04:10 PM (b1VIZ)

55 An old criminal is a slow criminal.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 04:10 PM (evdj2)

56 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.


Those fiefdoms eventually began the countries of Europe.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 04:11 PM (53z96)

57 >>>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 04:11 PM (3ZtZW)

58 Don't look at me!

Posted by: Polyester Pants at January 04, 2013 04:11 PM (v9Cj5)

59 Here in Texas we call that "adding bleach to the gene pool".

Posted by: rickb223
.........
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 04:11 PM (f9c2L)

60 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 04:11 PM (X70gw)

61 I don't like the reflexive call at the end of the article for Govt. spending to fix the problem. Why can't the author, Kevin Drum, lead by example and vow to spend his weekends volunteering to detox old, lead-painted, windows?

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 04:11 PM (UypUQ)

62 Oops, sorry Pug. i'm a fat guy in a little coat here.

Posted by: derit at January 04, 2013 04:11 PM (I88Jc)

63
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 04:11 PM (K+mtQ)

64 I thought it was eating paint chips....now i'm confused.

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 04:11 PM (QKKT0)

65 I'm committed mostly by 16-30 year old males who did not grow up with both biological parents


so, f*ck lead

Posted by: serious crime at January 04, 2013 04:12 PM (Dll6b)

66 I'm not going to click on motherfuckingjones, but do they actually
postulate a a theory and evidence as to why lead might cause violent criminal
behaviour?

Or is this all just arm-waving?

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 04, 2013 04:12 PM (S/WR4)

67 You know what else happened right before crime statistics? Drug use followed by an epidemic. It's all Towelie's fault.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:12 PM (NIZHJ)

68 >>>I don't know. Back when I was a teenager in the 70's I used to pump leaded gas into about 1,000 cars a day, and my crime rate was zero.


as with the viral theory of schizophrenia, not everyone is susceptible. Some people will either have a natural immunity. When it comes to crime, some people will also have a moral one.

Obviously there are a lot of factors to explain a part of human behavior (the most complex system of all) but you never know. This could be one of the factors. Doesn't mean there aren't 12 others.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:12 PM (LCRYB)

69 Rising consumption of unleaded gasoline has caused a dramatic increase in prison incarceration. Alert the media!

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 04:12 PM (+lsX1)

70 As for the incidence of lead usage, wouldn't that correlate to people fleeing to the suburbs to get away from the crime?


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 04:12 PM (bb5+k)

71
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 04:12 PM (/D/u1)

72 ~ tap tap tap tap tap ~

... so I said to Kareem Abdul Jabbar "Hadj it going?" and he looked at Hadji with flat eyes, the eyes of a doll. So Hadji excused himself and ... wait. This microphone... it is on?

Yes? and so.

People ask Hadji what country has people who are the most smart, the tallest camel in the pack, as it were. Hadji - he been around. Hadji - he know about these thing.

Hadji - He am smart. Smart like a fox.

The way Hadji tests the smartness of an audience is to tell a joke and find the audience's laughter as the measure. So Hadji worked and worked and came up with the perfection of a joke to tell.

What is this joke? you ask.

Hadji tell you: How does one determine if the immodest heathen woman standing in the palace of flesh and alcohol wearing small patches of fabric upon her femininity is ticklish?

Hadji give such woman a test tickle.

/pause/

If you laugh, you are of stupid. If the person on either of the sides of you are guffawing, you are stupid. The smart people? They do not stay around the stupid people.

I see you all are laughing.

~ sigh ~

These hedgehogs?
Why cannot they just share the hedge?

Thank you thank you thank you

Please remember that you can breathe through your nose as you can with your mouth. The veal has been pounded like the Copt in Medina.

Tip the waitresses.
_

Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at January 04, 2013 04:12 PM (RuUvx)

73
No worries, derit. Great minds and all that.

Posted by: Pug Mahon at January 04, 2013 04:12 PM (K+mtQ)

74
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 04:13 PM (zgHLA)

75
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 04:13 PM (b1VIZ)

76
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 04:13 PM (dC04t)

77 Not that Rome needed any help in falling. The bigger
question is how did the Empire last as long as it did.

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 04:13 PM (bb5+k)

78 If you really want to lower the crime rate decrease the birth rate and insist all children be raised in a home with an involved father. good luck

Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 04:13 PM (Dnbau)

79 >>>do they actually
postulate a a theory and evidence as to why lead might cause violent criminal
behaviour?

no but I think I've read that criminality is most pronounced in the combination of low IQ plus low impulse control/low appreciation for future consequences of actions.

Honestly anything that deranges your IQ will probably derange the other important parts of your mindthoughts, like impulse control.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:14 PM (LCRYB)

80 I have 100 gallons of leaded gasoline.

Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 04:14 PM (P1xyf)

81 ...

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)

------

Ken Royall,

But there is a 20-year lag in exposure due to childhood development.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 04:14 PM (UypUQ)

82 58Don't look at me!
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 04:14 PM (+xmn4)

83 I can still remember a friend of mine ( pumping gasoline all day ), trying to make a half-cent on every customer with those old rotating price meters


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 04:15 PM (Dll6b)

84 Keereist, Ace, you don't have to CHOOSE between pathogens and DNA allele repeats; they BOTH can cause stuff.

Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at January 04, 2013 04:16 PM (21TJo)

85 Whoever came up with this is on Heroin.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:16 PM (NIZHJ)

86 It was Disco.

Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 04:16 PM (EWsrI)

87 >>> 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.


sure. Not to get way ahead of things, but why so many single female parents, then?

It could be that the primary dysfunction of poor impulse control males is crime, and the primary dysfunction of poor impulse control *females* is a sort of sexual nonchalance.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:16 PM (LCRYB)

88 Cause and effect is not a strong suit for liberals. I could argue that flouride has caused crime to decline or that asbestos was a factor in the increased amount of crime during the studied crime periods. I could get any number of societal differences in those periods compared to today and make the same argument.

Posted by: polynikes at January 04, 2013 04:16 PM (m2CN7)

89 the crime wave was caused by the post WWII baby
boom. As birth rates have declined, so has crime. As the boomers age
out, they commit less or no crime. Its population demographics. Its
always been the case

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 04:16 PM (bb5+k)

90 An old criminal is an slow criminal easy target.

Why? Because you don't have to lead 'em as much.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 04:16 PM (GFM2b)

91 Why you gotta hate on Kareem? He's a true champion.

Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 04:16 PM (Hz1zc)

92 "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."


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 04:16 PM (eHIJJ)

93 Ace reads Mother Jones. Did that moisten your pussy lips, ace?

Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at January 04, 2013 04:17 PM (hlkDc)

94 I scoop 5 litter boxes on a daily basis.


Fear me.

Posted by: fluffy at January 04, 2013 04:17 PM (VLfx+)

95 Why do single mothers let their bastards eat lead paint chips?

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:17 PM (NIZHJ)

96 everything old is new again -

rickets from lack of vitamin d
goiters from lack of iodine due to restricted salt intake, plus a general foodie trend against iodized salt.

What's next? Mange?

Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 04:17 PM (RuUvx)

97 Well, I did a quick scan of PubMed and it is not chock-a-block full of papers from good journals describing this phenomenon (the underlying cause of schizophrenia, that is). Lots of small reports in foreign journals.

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 04:17 PM (5H6zj)

98 Next up: Co2 % and Temperature

Posted by: john b at January 04, 2013 04:17 PM (b6of5)

99 Apropos of absolutely nothing....


Warning: Clicking may cost you your soul


http://tinyurl.com/26rwkmq


NSFW

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 04:18 PM (IvVLN)

100 It's the chemtrails!

Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 04:18 PM (+xmn4)

101 Gonna need a control group of occutards in a room pumped with unleaded.
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 04:18 PM (X70gw)

102 Hey, hlkDc

DIAF

Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 04:18 PM (5H6zj)

103 >>>Or, you know, more stressed people in closer proximity annoying the hell out of each other. Either/Or.

sure but while big cities used to have a higher per capita rate than small cities, now they're about equal, such that cities you barely heard of are now making it into the top ten per-capita lists.

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)

104 Technology.

Technology has created all kinds of ways to catch criminals--DNA tests, computerized records, phone logs.

When it's easier to catch crooks--guess what--they think twice before breaking the law.

Then there is the advent of car phones, and cell phones.

The victims--aren't quite as helpless.

I'm pretty sure that has slowed down a lot of criminals.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:18 PM (r2PLg)

105 "correlation is not causation"

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 04:18 PM (e8kgV)

106 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 04, 2013 04:18 PM (5DR1j)

107 Btw, is lead the reason why I'm nostalgic for the smell of airplane fuel?

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 04:19 PM (UypUQ)

108
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 expertssubstitute 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 04:19 PM (LaKlJ)

109 Joe Mama: "Blindness is caused from a lack of Vitamin See."

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 04:19 PM (eHIJJ)

110 This tends to support my theory that useful idiot progressivism is caused by an unholy mix of salt air, police sirens, bus fumes,the omnipresent scent of stale urine, and long-term ingestion of deli meats.

Posted by: Jaws at January 04, 2013 04:19 PM (4I3Uo)

111 Why do single mothers let their bastards eat lead paint chips?

Chips is chips and the EBT card hasn't been reloaded yet.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 04:19 PM (GFM2b)

112 While cigarette smoking is a major factor in lung and other cancers, no one suggests that ONLY cigarettes cause cancer.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:19 PM (LCRYB)

113 Wherever the Bastard People move, there you have crime. It's the dangdest thing.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:19 PM (NIZHJ)

114 It is interesting. I would note that plenty of other countries have lead exposure and don't necessarily have a violent crime exposure, but lead is bad for you so it is something to pay attention to.

Posted by: Evi L. Bloggerlady at January 04, 2013 04:20 PM (4kTo2)

115
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 04:20 PM (VhqUZ)

116 Honestly anything that deranges your IQ will probably derange the other
important parts of your mindthoughts, like impulse control.


I wonder if IQs traced the inverse of this curve, then.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 04, 2013 04:20 PM (S/WR4)

117 there are Lies, Damn Lies, and me

Posted by: statistics at January 04, 2013 04:20 PM (Dll6b)

118
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 04:20 PM (bb5+k)

119 >>>Did Leaded Gasoline Fuel the 60s-80s Crimewave?
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 04:20 PM (0q2P7)

120 Mother Jones is TOO my real mommy!!

Posted by: Ergtrue Breathehard at January 04, 2013 04:20 PM (cgXOM)

121 Why you gotta hate on Kareem? He's a true champion.
-

Hadji say that Kareem does not work hard on defense. Also that Kareem does not run down the court - and that he does not try, except during playoffs.

It is a truism that Hadji has not dragged either Walton or the Lambier down the court for 48 minutes.

_

Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at January 04, 2013 04:20 PM (RuUvx)

122 "correlation is not causation"

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 04:20 PM (e8kgV)

123 I'd like to see evidence to back up this theory that kids growing up in 1990-2010 era have a higher IQ than those that were raised between 1960-1980.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 04:21 PM (UypUQ)

124 I read a "study" once that blamed it all on too many people in close proximity. The proved it by slowly adding rats to a pen. As the number of rats/sq ft went up the fights among the rats increased regardless of the food supply available. When a high elevel of rats/sq ft was reached the rats began wholesale killing of each other.



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)

125 This is just another example of --

simple liberal logic.

It's why Paul Krugman thinks he can rule the world with mathematical formulas.

They actually think they have all the answers, and can control all the variables.

Problem is--they never even consider more than one variable--

their-- answer.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:21 PM (r2PLg)

126

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/01/correlation-between-autism-dia.html

Posted by: dan-O at January 04, 2013 04:21 PM (HKV3S)

127 quick question.

in what way is an "upside down u" not a "right side up n"?

_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 04:21 PM (RuUvx)

128
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 04:22 PM (VhqUZ)

129 Did he check the statistics on the rise of gun-laws? 'Cause I'd be interested to know the correlation rate there.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 04, 2013 04:22 PM (5DR1j)

130 I think this also explains the rise and decline of bad hair styles and god aweful fashion designs.

Those things haven't declined at all.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 04:22 PM (ZKzrr)

131 But Michele Bachmann is crazy.

Posted by: Truman North, idol of dozens at January 04, 2013 04:22 PM (I2LwF)

132 Too easy, and too easily solved. So it is not true. The cause is the decay of the nuclear family, rejection of morals etc. Much of the crime has now dropped because a larger proportion of the crime-commiters are in jail for drug offenses. Let them out and watch the crime go back up.

Posted by: Jehu at January 04, 2013 04:22 PM (cSD32)

133 93

you're a true wit

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 04:22 PM (60GaT)

134 no but I think I've read that criminality is most
pronounced in the combination of low IQ plus low impulse control/low
appreciation for future consequences of actions.



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 04:22 PM (bb5+k)

135 OT, kinda, liberals on FB love to push the anti-gmo (genetically modified organisms) meme. Of course, at the heart of this is the evil Monsanto corporation. Well, yersterday a key leader of this movement reversed his position completely in a speech at Oxford.. This guy was hardcore, and now admits to being completely wrong. GMO is safe and beneficial. See his site marklynas.org for speech transcript.


Posted by: Helen at January 04, 2013 04:22 PM (93bH6)

136
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 justbishops, 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 04:22 PM (/D/u1)

137 sure but while big cities used to have a higher per capita rate than small cities, now they're about equal, such that cities you barely heard of are now making it into the top ten per-capita lists.

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 04:22 PM (+xmn4)

138 Cause and effect is not a strong suit for liberals. I could argue that flouride has caused crime to decline or that asbestos was a factor in the increased amount of crime during the studied crime periods. I could get any number of societal differences in those periods compared to today and make the same argument.
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 04:23 PM (X70gw)

139 Rome fell because their population became stupid, decadent, and complacent, and they were content to ignore, or dismiss, the barbarian hordes at the gates.

Europe has the same problem.. ignoring the barbarians they are importing at an alarming rate.

Posted by: Naqamel at January 04, 2013 04:23 PM (UMwMT)

140 Isn't this old news? I've heard of this theory before, I think it was in Freakonomics too.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 04:23 PM (HDgX3)

141 >>>Maybe not but it is a pretty eerie coincidence no?. We know for a fact that lead is bad for kids.

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 04:23 PM (0q2P7)

142 Remember the super fro, the male perm, the Mullet??

Lead. Gas.


Posted by: dananjcon at January 04, 2013 04:23 PM (jvd3N)

143 I want a job like that. I'd consider it the best job in the world for someone to pay me to just sift through data and find patterns. I'm not kidding. Everyday would be a treasure hunt, and you'd get paid real money.

Posted by: Invictus at January 04, 2013 04:23 PM (OQpzc)

144 "Maybe not but it is a pretty eerie coincidence no?"

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 04:23 PM (Tt6ky)

145 Today's teens are the stupidest bastards ever birthed. Our air and water is cleaner then ever.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:23 PM (NIZHJ)

146
Just watch the Crime Wave once I get going.

Posted by: Farts at January 04, 2013 04:23 PM (UgFxe)

147 So what explains the insanity of the last 5 years? I'm sticking with the Large Hadron Collider.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 04:24 PM (evdj2)

148 What's the correlation between good, quality rock music and worldwide oil supplies? They both peaked around the same time, according to Overthinking It, and they both illustrate what occurs when you're using something up from a limited pool--crude oil stores in one case, and musical ideas in the other. Have we run out of both?

Posted by: Mick Jagger at January 04, 2013 04:24 PM (e8kgV)

149 I always thought it was the widespread adoption of 3 strikes and you're out laws, which happened in th e90s. But who knows?

Posted by: JohnW at January 04, 2013 04:24 PM (Scw23)

150
Are you guys implying that the decrease in crime is a lie?

Posted by: eleven at January 04, 2013 04:24 PM (VhqUZ)

151 The Roman Empire really did not fail.
Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 04:11 PM (53z96)


Then what's that German doing peeing in my bathtub?

Posted by: Romulus at January 04, 2013 04:24 PM (DrC22)

152 Maybe not but it is a pretty eerie coincidence no?. We know for a fact that lead is bad for kids.

Eating lead paint chips can kill or retard children, but there's no evidence it makes them violent.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 04:24 PM (5PkZK)

153
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 04:24 PM (bb5+k)

154 "Hadji say that Kareem does not work hard on defense. Also that Kareem does not run down the court - and that he does not try, except during playoffs. "

Jordan says Kareem has worked hard in retirement to make southern CO a better place. Jordan says he did damn good coaching a rez team. Jordan says he saw Kareem in the grocery and gee.... he's tall!

Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 04:24 PM (Hz1zc)

155
If a blind man leads another blind man's fuel, they shall both drive into a pit.

Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 04:24 PM (cgXOM)

156 erg,

Does it every occur to you that while you fancy yourself a rational, enlightened, socially-conscious, intelligent individual, your actual actions are those of a hateful, stupid lunatic?

How much of a deranged sociopath can you behave like and still cling to this delusion that you are somehow elevated?

You never write anything intelligent. Even your insults demonstrate a thickness. You have yourself very poor impulse control -- you seem to think that whatever stupid, nasty thing you think is fit for publication. You have no discernment and no judgment as regards yourself.

You are dumb, bitter, bankruptcy of a man with deep anger about your sexuality.

But you come here twice a week to posture as someone above us.



Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:25 PM (LCRYB)

157 Not the leaded fuel, but he lead paint on window sills.
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 04:25 PM (Rmz5I)

158 Nope. It was Pong [created 1972] by Atari. NRA told us all that - why don't you ever listen?

Posted by: uterus cannon at January 04, 2013 04:25 PM (3ZtZW)

159 it all started with a wave of really bad parenting. It ended because of technology put into the hands of law abiding citizens: cell phones, video cameras, internet etc...

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at January 04, 2013 04:25 PM (SkyIE)

160 While cigarette smoking is a major factor in lung and other cancers, no one suggests that ONLY cigarettes cause cancer.
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 04:26 PM (m2CN7)

161 130
I think this also explains the rise and decline of bad hair styles and god aweful fashion designs.

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 04:26 PM (jvd3N)

162 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."


I need to stitch that into a sampler.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 04:27 PM (ZKzrr)

163 I'm not gonna math this up--this idea is so silly I'm amazed anyone even considers it--but if I were gonna, I'd start here: A "lag time of 23 years" doesn't match the average/median/mean/lump-in-the-curve age of violent offense, and it's nowhere near the beginning of the curve.

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 04:27 PM (cePv8)

164
yep, just like how lead in clay pots brought down the great Roman Empire

right?


Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2013 04:27 PM (vuIm8)

165 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."

----

It could explain those stupid noun declensions, too.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 04:27 PM (XUKZU)

166 Posted by: Grey Fox at January 04, 2013 04:22 PM (/D/u1)


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 04:27 PM (53z96)

167
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 04:28 PM (bb5+k)

168 Not to get way ahead of things, but why so many single female parents, then?


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 04:28 PM (5DR1j)

169 An argument/impulse I keep seeing in the comments seems to flow from the idea that if lead were a contributing factor in crime, then our policy responses to crime must therefore be nullities.

That doesn't follow. It could be both that lead has a major contributing factor in crime, and also that the policy responses people seem to be defending (by attacking this theory) are ALSO a contributing factor to a decrease in crime.

You can have a multiplicity of important factors.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:28 PM (LCRYB)

170 The leisure suit is clearly an example of atmospheric lead effects.

Posted by: dogfish at January 04, 2013 04:28 PM (NuPNl)

171 If cigarettes "caused" cancer, all smokers would get cancer.

Posted by: Invictus at January 04, 2013 04:28 PM (OQpzc)

172

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 04:28 PM (HKV3S)

173 Why did my History Prof say the Romans had Terra Cotta Pipes?

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:29 PM (NIZHJ)

174 The level of scientific, historical and statistical prowess displayed in these comments leads me to suspect that access to leaded gasoline remains widespread.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 04:29 PM (+lsX1)

175 Does less crime imply less criminals? Or that the finite pool of criminals are spending more time in prison?

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 04:29 PM (evdj2)

176
it's just so peculiar how all the conclusions of what ails the world points to white/western/capitalism/fossil fuels.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2013 04:29 PM (LPRBM)

177 Because the law has made single-parent families more

cash lucrative.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 04:30 PM (GFM2b)

178 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 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 04:30 PM (/D/u1)

179 Wait!

It could all be explained by--

hair perms and Jheri Curl!!!

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (r2PLg)

180
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 04:31 PM (e8kgV)

181 "Does less crime imply less criminals? Or that the finite pool of criminals are spending more time in prison?"

There is no finite pool of criminals. There's only law and circumstance.

Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (Hz1zc)

182 >>>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.

If I have your basic idea right, you seem to think (?) that "societal phenomenon" are *purely* a matter of morality and correct government policy, to the point where you will not entertain that perhaps there is a biological/environmental factor?

I can look it up if you like, but I'm quite sure there is a strongly positive correlation between low IQ and criminality.



Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (LCRYB)

183 80% of divorces are initiated by the female.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (b1VIZ)

184 Now we know why Paul Simon is still crazy after all these years

Posted by: Cricket at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (DrC22)

185 back when the minimum wage was $1.60 hr

Don't make me nostalgic, man. As a teenager with zero skills I could buy six gallons of gasoline for every hour I worked. Doing nothing tougher then asking, "Fill it up?" then depressing a nozzle.

'Kids' today have no fucking idea how obscene prices for fuels have depressed their standard of living. They watched the price of a gallon of gas double under Obama and still think the right answer to 'Why?' is 'Bush'.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (feFL6)

186 true fact -

I was working with DuPont at their paint tint factory. The paints scientist guy and I were talking and he commented - "You know, if you could design the perfect thing to add to paint to make it long lasting, especially out of doors, it would be lead"

He then described how lead in the paint is good for the paint.

We then chatted about how lead in children was bad.

Pretty much, his job was to replicate lead in ways that don't hurt kids.

-

Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (RuUvx)

187 This one is easy. No.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (NIZHJ)

188 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 04:23 PM (Tt6ky)


-----------------------------------------


100% agree. There's a statistical formula for every result that you want.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (X70gw)

189 If cigarettes "caused" cancer, all smokers would get cancer.

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 04:32 PM (SY2Kh)

190 the causes of collapse were many and included constant civil war,
increasingly sophisticated "barbarian" opponents . . . , and a series of
poor decisions at critical points in the late fourth and early fifth
centuries.

---

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 04:32 PM (XUKZU)

191 I just listened to an epic 4-hour Dan Carlin podcast about the "fall" of Rome, Germanic tribes, Goths, Clovis and up through Charlemagne.
Covered a lot of ground and quite interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/7c82nx8

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (oKVrA)

192 which is to say - lead was in the paint because it worked. For paint.

not due to some eeeevil Matt Damonesque plot.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (RuUvx)

193 increasingly sophisticated "barbarian" opponents (German society in particular changed dramatically in the third century)

Who had been trained, taught, in many cases even raised among the Romans. Lessons the Germans learned well, and turned upon the Romans.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, Lord Commander of the Knights who say Ni! at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (GBXon)

194
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 04:33 PM (4u2LN)

195 And now that I read it, it's correlating crime rates with lead, not lead with the number of criminals. So, since criminals tend to commit not just scores, but hundreds of crimes, the permissive policies of the 60s-80s period could explain the decline. More time in jail, less opportunity. Couple that with the aging of the boomers and lead might not be involved at all.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (evdj2)

196
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 theoryhas to extend to certain ethnic groups being effected differently.

Posted by: polynikes at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (m2CN7)

197 169 An argument/impulse I keep seeing in the comments seems to flow from the idea that if lead were a contributing factor in crime, then our policy responses to crime must therefore be nullities.

That doesn't follow. It could be both that lead has a major contributing factor in crime, and also that the policy responses people seem to be defending (by attacking this theory) are ALSO a contributing factor to a decrease in crime.

You can have a multiplicity of important factors.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:28 PM (LCRYB)

____________________

--Yet the article on a fast skim doesn't even seem to address that.

The advancement of technology has made crime harder and catching the criminal--easier.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (r2PLg)

198 why so many single parent families now?

because we have incentivized it. What you incentivize, you get more of. what you penalize, you get less of. We pay for single mothers, yet tax marrieds at a higher rate. Couple that with the decline of religious life and the destigmatization of out of wedlock parenthood and that is what you get.

There was criminal behavior well before lead paint and progressive policies however. Its population demographics. Wherever you have a large population of young males, there will be crime.

However, if you eliminate moderating influences such as two parent homes, you get more crime.

Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (Dnbau)

199 By now it should be beyond dispute that hot lead actually reduces crime.

Posted by: Elliott Ness at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (QKKT0)

200 Pretty much, his job was to replicate lead in ways that don't hurt kids.

Alchemy. Burn the witch!

Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 04:34 PM (GFM2b)

201 "I can look it up if you like, but I'm quite sure there is a strongly positive correlation between low IQ and criminality."

How judgmental! Not all differently-IQ'd persons are criminals!

/liberal

Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 04:34 PM (Tt6ky)

202 100% agree. There's a statistical formula for every result that you want.Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 04:31 PM (X70gw)

In this case, how can I get the numbers to read "Emma Stoneclimbinginto my bed" at 100%?

Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 04:34 PM (+xmn4)

203 189 If cigarettes "caused" cancer, all smokers would get cancer.
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 04:32 PM (SY2Kh)

If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning.

Posted by: Peter, Paul and Mary at January 04, 2013 04:34 PM (DrC22)

204 Meh.

This is on par with the "science" that "proved" mercury in vaccinations causes autism.

And the "science" behind the banning DDT.


Hey, you know what also correlates to criminal activity?

Bras.

Specifically women wearing bras.

Look at the maps. Wherever there's a high number of women wearing bras, there's also a high crime rate.

So, let'em flop and headlights on, Ladies!

It's science.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 04, 2013 04:34 PM (UgFxe)

205 ace, beware the tedmpting curves.

I bet you can get interesting curves by comparing the stats on autism and the spread of Indian restaurants.



Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 04:34 PM (EWsrI)

206 in the late 60's, gas was 29.9 cents gallon. During 'price wars', it went down to 25.9. So yeah, your 1.60 an hour went further.


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 04:34 PM (Dll6b)

207 >>>
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.

...

With all due respect, it seems to me that you are the one doing the Calvinist thinking.

Obviously *bad things* happen to people that they did not choose. I am sure there are people here who have lost loved ones to car accidents and diseases and war.

On one hand you knock this theory as, I guess, attempting to claim there is no room for morality and individual choice in life if the theory is true. I disagree with that, as I've said above, but you seem to be arguing an absolutist and extreme version of the case -- that all outcomes are ENTIRELY due to morality and life choices.

I am sure there are readers here who lost loved ones to cancer, including children. I do not think they would agree with your thesis that evil and tragedy can *Only* flow from personal choices to invite evil and tragedy.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:34 PM (LCRYB)

208 Eating lead paint chips can kill or retard children, but there's no evidence it makes them violent.


-----

It hasn't really been looked for til now, has it? The fact that we know lead exposure does lead to lowered IQ, and that those with low IQ commit more crimes, makes the idea that lead exposure leads (in some cases) to crime pretty reasonable

Besides, whether the person is diagnosed with mental retardation or not often makes the difference between "crime" and "proof that this person needs to be better supervised". A person who was damaged by lead exposure, but never officially diagnosed as a retarded may end up in jail, while his neighbor who was similarly damaged but had good parents who got him diagnosed will end up on SSI.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 04:35 PM (b+8h9)

209 If cigarettes "caused" cancer, all smokers would get cancer.

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 04:35 PM (bb5+k)

210 In this case, how can I get the numbers to read "Emma Stoneclimbinginto my bed" at 100%?
--------------------

The curse of statistics - the general never applies to the specific.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 04, 2013 04:35 PM (RuUvx)

211 Has anybody bothered to look at the same data for Mexico City? They may still be using leaded gasoline.

Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2013 04:36 PM (w3+gB)

212 "We pay for single mothers, yet tax marrieds at a higher rate"

i always hear this mentioned, am unfamiliar with it so've never understood it, what exactly is the rationale for the penalty (assuming the description's accurate)

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 04:36 PM (60GaT)

213 What was the demographic breakdown of the increased crime and decreased crimes?

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 04, 2013 04:36 PM (R8hU8)

214 196
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 theoryhas to extend to certain ethnic groups being effected differently.
Posted by: polynikes at January 04, 2013 04:33 PM (m2CN7)

________________________

So--there's lead in the Jheri Curl!!!!1!!

--Paul Krugman, Dilettante

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:36 PM (r2PLg)

215
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 04:36 PM (4u2LN)

216 Andy Kaufman never smoked

Posted by: contrarian guy at January 04, 2013 04:36 PM (Dll6b)

217 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 04:30 PM (/D/u1)


The incentives are such that you get paid more for more children.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 04:36 PM (bb5+k)

218 >>>
--Yet the article on a fast skim doesn't even seem to address that.

Kevin Drum is a liberal/leftist writing for a liberal/leftist magazine. Of course Mother Jones would like to claim what you are arguing against (i.e., that "no one is responsible" and etc.)

One doesn't have to take it to that silly extreme, though. One could just say "This could be an important factor."

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:37 PM (LCRYB)

219 There should be a higher instance of criminality among fishermen. As they handle lead weights, even using teeth to open and close split-shot sinkers.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 04, 2013 04:37 PM (b1VIZ)

220 I think Central and South America still have heavy metals in their water.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:37 PM (NIZHJ)

221 I can look it up if you like, but I'm quite sure there is a strongly positive correlation between low IQ and criminality.


---

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 04:37 PM (5H6zj)

222 @87- maybe ace. Or maybe that poor impulse control is related to "If I haf anutha baby the gubmint gimme suh mo money."

Posted by: teej at January 04, 2013 04:37 PM (Khu8a)

223 The brain, being the most complicated organ, would I think naturally
be the one most susceptible to bugs and glitches caused by small things.



This is why I would never drive a Toyota Prion.

Posted by: Joe Biden at January 04, 2013 04:37 PM (QKKT0)

224 "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."

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 04:38 PM (Tt6ky)

225 I used to get a tin can of Lucky Leaf apple juice every day in my 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)

226 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 04:38 PM (9KqcB)

227 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 04:38 PM (X70gw)

228 150 Are you guys implying that the decrease in crime is a lie?

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

Posted by: Rob McNeece at January 04, 2013 04:38 PM (YesJa)

229 211
Has anybody bothered to look at the same data for Mexico City? They may still be using leaded gasoline.


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 04:39 PM (jvd3N)

230 "Kids' today have no fucking idea how obscene prices for fuels have depressed their standard of living."

So long as the winds fill the sails of the container ships carrying my new Apple products from Hon Hai, it's cool.

Posted by: derit at January 04, 2013 04:39 PM (I88Jc)

231 There should be a higher instance of criminality among fishermen. As
they handle lead weights, even using teeth to open and close split-shot
sinkers.



Ever try to find someone to rape on a commercial fishing boat?

Posted by: The Gortons Fisherman at January 04, 2013 04:39 PM (QKKT0)

232 4 Correlation does not equal causation.

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 04:39 PM (XkotV)

233


What about me!

Posted by: asbestos at January 04, 2013 04:39 PM (LpQbZ)

234 No on in Led Zeppelin became a criminal. This is coffee talk Bull Shit. The next thread may be a review of the latest Justin Beiber video.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:40 PM (NIZHJ)

235
Another Zero success story.....
http://tinyurl.com/bgexmxk

Posted by: maddogg at January 04, 2013 04:40 PM (OlN4e)

236 Who had been trained, taught, in many cases even raised among the Romans. Lessons the Germans learned well, and turned upon the Romans.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 ofdefeating 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 04:40 PM (/D/u1)

237 225
I used to get a tin can of Lucky Leaf apple juice every day in my
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)


Define 'just fine'.

Posted by: Tami at January 04, 2013 04:40 PM (X6akg)

238 >>>I can look it up if you like, but I'm quite sure there is a strongly positive correlation between low IQ and criminality.

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 04:41 PM (0q2P7)

239 I've read that lead travelling at 3000 feet per second can also severely retard IQ.

Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 04:41 PM (+xmn4)

240
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 04:41 PM (4u2LN)

241 Must have been the lead.

Posted by: Scientist at January 04, 2013 04:41 PM (lreFA)

242 It appears that in just a couple of hundred comments, a bunch of morons can come up with multiple unexamined variables that make taking any conclusions from this analysis unusable. Typical really.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 04:41 PM (evdj2)

243 I just find it hard to believe that the easy availability of abortion has no impact on women's sexual choices.

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 04:42 PM (5DR1j)

244
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 04:42 PM (VhqUZ)

245 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

----

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 04:42 PM (UypUQ)

246
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 04:43 PM (4u2LN)

247 >>>As a voice crying out in the wilderness, I say again: correlation is not causation.

Let me respond, as people keep saying this and think it's an important point:

It's not. We all know this. We all know that just because A correlates with B does not mean that A leads to B. It could be the B leads to A, or that C leads to A and B, or that the statistical correlation is pure noise.

It's obvious.

Everyone knows this.

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.

It would be unscientific of me to claim it's true-- I don't have the data and obviously the data is in an early, barely-explored form anyway.

But it's every bit as unscientific to say "Correlation does not imply causation so obviously this is false."

You don't know, I don't know. I'm perfectly willing to confess that this might be hokum -- obviously, having posted it, I have a bias in the other direction, but I will gladly say "I don't know, I'm not an epidemiologist nor a statistician, I have no way to evaluate this at all, except to say IF true, it's intriguing."

Are you willing to confess the opposite, or do you claim to *know* it's all false?



Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:43 PM (LCRYB)

248 Oh, no question that lead is the left's new boogey-man. My vegan niece has been on it like white on rice ever since her intellectually honest husband realized there was no actual global warming.

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 04:43 PM (x0dlI)

249 leftists have corrupted everything in our culture to the point where we
can't believe anything scientists, teachers, historians say anymore.

---


True, today everything is spin.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 04:43 PM (XUKZU)

250 I used to get a tin can of Lucky Leaf apple juice every day in my

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 04:44 PM (jvd3N)

251 One doesn't have to take it to that silly extreme, though. One could just say "This could be an important factor."





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 04:44 PM (5BEp7)

252 It hasn't really been looked for til now, has it? The fact that we know lead exposure does lead to lowered IQ, and that those with low IQ commit more crimes, makes the idea that lead exposure leads (in some cases) to crime pretty reasonable

You are stringing together correlations.

We don't know that 1) lead inhaled from car exhaust in some quantity during development is sufficient to cause brain damage, or 2) that brain damage caused by lead increases violent activity.

What we have are broad correlations. 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)

253
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 04:44 PM (VhqUZ)

254 The [i[real purpose of the article seems to be--

#1) Take away any credit from Rudy Giuliani for the miraculous turn around of New York City.

It wan't all of the Republican ideas of making individuals responsible for crime, holding them accountable and punishing the crime--

it was the Liberal Idea of controlling the environment.

It also furthers the Liberal idea that the locus of control for violent behavior is external vs. internal.

Finally the article is just another log on the fire of Liberals determining what kind of B.F. Skinner box --

we all get to "live' in.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:44 PM (r2PLg)

255 White lead paint tastes like vanilla.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 04, 2013 04:45 PM (MPjT8)

256 This whole thing would only be of interest if someone was suggesting that lead be reintroduced into the environment.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 04:45 PM (evdj2)

257 In this case, how can I get the numbers to read "Emma Stoneclimbinginto my bed" at 100%?
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 04:45 PM (X70gw)

258 The Roman Empire never used Leaded Gasoline.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:46 PM (NIZHJ)

259 your = you're

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 04:46 PM (X70gw)

260 "I don't. Abortion has never been popular except with the "intelligentsia" and the eugenics crowd."

Give me a fucking break. Abortion breaks across all "crowds."

Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 04:46 PM (Hz1zc)

261 we seem to be debating this as liberals debate "Science," purely on the *political implications* of the theory, more or less ignoring evidence or possibility of results-driven thinking (e.g., It Helps My Political Positioning If This Isn't True Ergo It Isn't True).

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:46 PM (LCRYB)

262 I got a bum rap, I tell ya. I ain't done nothin' to nobody!

Posted by: Lead at January 04, 2013 04:46 PM (a0nis)

263
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 04:47 PM (4u2LN)

264 For those questioning the "can lead make people do bad things" argument theologically, remember that carrying out one's nefarious thoughts is certainly dumb, but isn't a sin isolated from the sinful nefarious thought in the first place. E.g. if you're dumb enough, you're a more active evil but not necessarily less evil per se.

Not that I think a direct causation of any kind is likely.

Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 04:47 PM (cgXOM)

265 Re Roman heavy metal poisoning, it wasn't just lead in aqueduct plumbing. The Roman upper classes became fond of a pricey sweet condiment syrup made by fermenting wine in lead-lined casks. The product tasted sweet because of its lead acetate content. It was in effect a targeted dosing of the leadership class.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at January 04, 2013 04:47 PM (8hBZi)

266 Shorter Mother Jones--

Rudy Giuliani--didn't do anything--he just rode the wave of--Environmentalism!


They can--

piss off.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:47 PM (r2PLg)

267 "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."

Well put Soona.

Posted by: dananjcon at January 04, 2013 04:47 PM (jvd3N)

268 We need to get John Edwards to channel some of the executed killers for us and see if they think lead contributed to their criminality. That's science.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 04:47 PM (XUKZU)

269 White lead paint tastes like vanilla.


Black lead paint tastes like licorice.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 04:47 PM (GFM2b)

270 225 I used to get a tin can of Lucky Leaf apple juice every day in my 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)




This, this explains a lot.




Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 04:47 PM (IvVLN)

271 sometimes kids with developmental delays and neurological differences chew on painted surfaces, some of which may have had lead paint.

I know cause my kid with aspergers was one of them. I don't think he would have knawed on that bannister were he neurotypical. My other kids didn't.

What I am trying to say is that poverty does not necessarily make a kid eat paint chips, but a neurological issue might. A pre-existing condition, if you will.

The vast majority of criminals with low IQs inherited their IQ genetically. But we can't talk about that. I denounce myself

Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 04:48 PM (Dnbau)

272
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 04:48 PM (4u2LN)

273
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 04:48 PM (bb5+k)

274 He aint' heavy. He's my brother.

Posted by: Zinc at January 04, 2013 04:48 PM (b1VIZ)

275 Expect a lot more problems to be traced to lead, I predict it will be the new environmental crisis.

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 04:48 PM (ZKzrr)

276
Best guess?

This is the left's new bid to hamstring and destroy the E-e-e-e-e-e-e-vil Oil Companies through lawfare,

Massive class action lawsuits which somehow load hundreds of millions into Dim hands.


Attention Lawyer morons - this is opportunity calling.

file first.

Posted by: naturalfake at January 04, 2013 04:48 PM (UgFxe)

277 I used to work at HUD back in the 80s, and I have seentons of old public housing apartments and low-rent housing thatwas 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 04:49 PM (NYnoe)

278 Are you willing to confess the opposite, or do you claim to *know* it's all false?

Scientists are skeptics first and foremost. If a claim is made, it needs convincing evidence to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 04:49 PM (iO3BG)

279 Not so long ago, the supermarket checkout rags used to have stories like "US to Mint Million Dollar Bill". Now you have the MSM seriously promoting the idea of a Trillion Dollar Coin

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 04:49 PM (wwsoB)

280 It was the drugs.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:49 PM (NIZHJ)

281 I got a bum rap, I tell ya. I ain't done nothin' to nobody!

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 04:49 PM (XUKZU)

282 I'd like to see evidence to back up this theory that kids growing up in 1990-2010 era have a higher IQ than those that were raised between 1960-1980.

I had a discussion about this with somebody recently. I think it's true but also not true in that it's more an artifact of how IQ is tested.

A number of the proxies in IQ testing (spacial, classification, and logical/analytical reasoning) are much better developed over more of the population nowadays because of video games and daily interaction with computers. So today's people may be much better at these things than yesterday's people--thereby raising their IQ scores--but I don't know whether the rise in baseline aptitude in these areas means that today's people are more intelligent than yesterday's people.

Once upon a time, the College Board put vocabulary questions on the SAT because it was a proxy for how well read a student was which in turn was supposed to be a predictor for how well they would do in higher ed. A shit ton of my (college track) HS English time was spent memorizing vocabulary words. Had it not been for the English 3200 programmed text that my father insisted I complete, I would have known jack about grammar when I got to college.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 04, 2013 04:49 PM (V3kRK)

283 Just because liberals jump on a theory that they think demonstrates the complete absence of personal responsibility (which, let's face it, is why they love stuff like this), doesn't mean that we should automatically react oppositely. Even if lead can be demonstrated to be a causative factor for criminality, that doesn't mean that criminals aren't responsible for their decisions. Just as poverty, low IQ, gender, etc, are strongly linked to criminality, there are plenty of people on the wrong side of the poverty/IQ/gender/etc. line who do not commit crimes, despite having all of these "causative" factors against them.

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 04:50 PM (Tt6ky)

284
"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 04:50 PM (VhqUZ)

285 261 we seem to be debating this as liberals debate "Science," purely on the *political implications* of the theory, more or less ignoring evidence or possibility of results-driven thinking (e.g., It Helps My Political Positioning If This Isn't True Ergo It Isn't True).

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:46 PM (LCRYB)


____________________


Well--why did Mother Jones start off with--

Rudy Giuliani?

Why do they spend about SEVEN of their first paragraphs on--

Rudy Giuliani?

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:50 PM (r2PLg)

286 Further study is needed.

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 04:50 PM (5DR1j)

287 >>>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.

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 04:50 PM (0q2P7)

288 Why bother looking for actual causation between lead and crime?

Is lead coming back?

Just don't use lead anymore.

That will be $10,000 please.

Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 04:50 PM (EWsrI)

289 Looking at our file on Mr. Empire of Jeff, we find that he is "Just Fine".

Posted by: U.S. Department of Contemporary Findings and Other Academic Certainties at January 04, 2013 04:50 PM (eHIJJ)

290 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 04:51 PM (X70gw)

291 >>>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.

Yes it is, but no it isn't.

There are false-positive correlations and there are real correlations, and by the latter I mean correlations that suggest true causality.

You seem to be arguing the position that we should never bother searching for correlations, as correlations are, by definition, irrelevant and illogical and wholly without scientific interest!

That's just wacky.

In order to argue against global warming "science" you're willing to toss out an entire powerful branch of science. Essentially you're saying "who needs science anyway?"

Scientists are wrong a lot, of course. I don't see why we should go down the crazy road of being generally dismissive of science.

One can employ discrimination, you know.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:51 PM (LCRYB)

292 From a Caribbean guy's perspective:

"How Black America Has Predicted Our Future"

http://tinyurl.com/b5eeq58

"Black Americans used to have more stable families and much lower illegitimacy rates (on par with or somewhat lower than those of modern white Americans). They had thinner women and lower crime rates. Their men were valued once, less marginalized and expendable than they are now considered to be and not as frequently incarcerated either.
In other words, there was a time in which Black America was a much closer parallel to the White America we know.
White Americans still hold on to pieces of this old reality, and now sound alarms throughout the manosphere of decline as more negative trends come closer and closer to home. Meanwhile, Black Americans have no room left for decline-the destruction is already complete."

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 04:51 PM (oKVrA)

293 253 Hey dumbfuck Rob....it was a question. You could have said yes but you chose not to. Why is that?

Mainly due to the lingering depression from an unemployment fudge story in another tab. I was more saying "Fuck You!" to our lovely Government than addressing you at all, to be honest.

Who the fuck were you again?

Posted by: Rob McNeece at January 04, 2013 04:51 PM (YesJa)

294
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 04:51 PM (4u2LN)

295
This whole thing would only be of interest if someone was suggesting that lead be reintroduced into the environment.

---

You're overlooking the lawsuits.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 04:51 PM (XUKZU)

296
'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 04:52 PM (uGiHE)

297 Scientists are skeptics first and foremost. If a claim is made, it needs convincing evidence to be taken seriously.

Unless government grants are involved.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 04:52 PM (GFM2b)

298 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 04:52 PM (9KqcB)

299 Both the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have stated that there is no safe level of lead exposure. And even though a child may never pick up a gun, lead particles from indoor and outdoor gun ranges, such as the one proposed in South Jordan, could still find their way into kids' bodies.

"You're gonna have a steady misting of the immediate neighborhood with lead," said Dr. Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, who has spoken out in opposition of the new South Jordan business. "And any person who uses the range will carry a little bit of lead home to whoever they live with."

Posted by: Scientist at January 04, 2013 04:52 PM (lreFA)

300 The moon really is made of cheese.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:52 PM (NIZHJ)

301 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.

Memphis. HUD Section 8 crime clusters.

http://tinyurl.com/bkv6bbp

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at January 04, 2013 04:52 PM (V3kRK)

302 23
Did anyone happen to check the correlation between crime and the
government sponsored decline of the two-parent family? Libs always want a
chemical cause so they can ban something to make it all better.

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 04:52 PM (HDgX3)

303 Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:46 PM (LCRYB)

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 04:52 PM (5BEp7)

304 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. Thus with one stroke they bolster environmentalism and discredit crime-fighting techniques. I'm willing to accept that the greater prevalence of lead was a causal factor in the increase in crime rates; what's bothering people is that it probably wasn't THE SOLE causal factor, but the Left will claim it was. Hence the counterarguments.

Posted by: joncelli at January 04, 2013 04:52 PM (RD7QR)

305 267 "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."


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 04:53 PM (XkotV)

306 We deal in lead friend.

Posted by: The Magnificent Seven at January 04, 2013 04:53 PM (pLTLS)

307 I don't believe any study unless the study, all its assumptions, and it methodology are published so that I and anyone in the public can review them.


I especially trust NOTHING published by our current government.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 04:53 PM (53z96)

308 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 04:53 PM (9KqcB)

309 >>>Further study is needed.

[Reply:] Why? Is there some push to start using leaded gas again?

Wow, the Small Government types, the types who proudly say "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.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:53 PM (LCRYB)

310 219 There should be a higher instance of criminality among fishermen. As they handle lead weights, even using teeth to open and close split-shot sinkers.


-----

I don't understand why people are bringing up fishermen, and gas station attendants and other adults who get exposed to more lead than average. The lead exposure-lower IQ link has always dealt with prenatal and early childhood exposure. The developing brain is most vulnerable to lead exposure damage, damage from not getting adequate dietary fat, and viral damage (e.g. CMV).

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 04:53 PM (b+8h9)

311 302

nah just means a million different factors go into everything


Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 04:53 PM (60GaT)

312 275 Heather that is the biggest reason I've been so active suggesting people buy ammo now- their other trick is to pronounce that bullets made of any other material are "armor-piercing", and thus have no place in civil society. So you can see that banning most all ammo would have the same effect as banning guns but would avoid all those pesky 2nd amendment naysayers. I suspect the Feinstein "gun ban list" is a feint

Posted by: DAve at January 04, 2013 04:53 PM (XDC0v)

313 Maybe there is something to the leaded gas thing. I used to sniff the gas tank of my Harley to see how much was left in the tank. Then I found out it was easier to light a match to see for myself what was in there

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 04:54 PM (wwsoB)

314 These gray pony tailed hippies will try to blame anything for their overall rascality except the weed. It's the Argon I tell you.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 04:54 PM (NIZHJ)

315
"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 04:54 PM (+9AX9)

316 305 Word

Posted by: DAve at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (XDC0v)

317 Lead lowers crime if introduced into a criminal at high enough velocity.

Posted by: zsasz at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (HT2Nt)

318 I forgot what a cinematic masterpiece Hot Lead and Cold Feet was.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (oKVrA)

319 Wow, the Small Government types, the types who proudly say "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.

I'm just saying the answer is probably unknowable, and effectively moot anyway.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (evdj2)

320 You're gonna have a steady misting of the immediate neighborhood with lead

Sam Spade returns

in

L E A D
M I S T

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (S/WR4)

321
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 areconsequences of a common cause (a low pressure cell).

Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (4u2LN)

322
The last time I bought ethyl was 1989 in Fort Worth, Texas, at a Sinclair's station.

Posted by: I have to put fake lead in my '67 :( at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (yn6XZ)

323 >>> 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.

why sure but just because the left might (read: "will") take a stupid, results-driven, hyperpoliticized position is really no reason for we ourselves to take an equal-but-opposite stupid, results-driven, hyperpoliticized position.

We ought to be rationalists. Conservatism should have no fear of legitimate inquiry. in fact, it should welcome it -- if we believe our cause and the truth are closely aligned.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (LCRYB)

324 isn't it common sense to look at hereditary factors when looking at impulsivity and IQ? ADHD has a strong genetic component, as do spectrum disorders.

Posted by: Thunderb at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (Dnbau)

325

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)

326 Wow, the Small Government types, the types who proudly say "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.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:53 PM (LCRYB)



Cute Ace, but no. The point is, what's the point of continued study? Lead is bad for you. No shit, we all know that. How does this study, or further studies, benefit anything or anyone?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 04:55 PM (IvVLN)

327 301- Thanks, that was the one. I found that interesting.

Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 04:56 PM (+xmn4)

328 The Mother Jones article's motive--

isn't the dispassionate, cold and logical discussion of science-- it's motive is to discredit Republicans, and their political theories while advancing their own religion of controlling human behavior via "The Environment".

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 04:56 PM (r2PLg)

329 Wow, the Small Government types, the types who
proudly say "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.





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 04:56 PM (5BEp7)

330 Ammo grab? "Protect the childrens from lead"? Seems possible as a stirring-shit-on-lead motive.

Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 04:56 PM (cgXOM)

331 I got a bum rap, I tell ya! Excuse me for a sec.

*inhales*

Awwwwww yeah.

Posted by: Weed at January 04, 2013 04:56 PM (a0nis)

332 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 04:56 PM (W6iIX)

333 219 There should be a higher instance of criminality among fishermen. As they handle lead weights, even using teeth to open and close split-shot sinkers.


They became pirates, remember?

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 04:57 PM (oKVrA)

334 Incarcerations at a record high in spite of reduced crime rate.

Posted by: Actual New York Times Headline at January 04, 2013 04:57 PM (wwsoB)

335 323 Yep

Posted by: DAve at January 04, 2013 04:57 PM (XDC0v)

336 What about all of those kids that used to ride their bikes to school behind the DDT truck, enveloped in an acrid fog of insect death?

I think we turned out just fine.

Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2013 04:57 PM (w3+gB)

337 Direct democracy, something the Founding Fathers understood, killed Rome. Once 51% of the population realized they could vote to steal from the other 49% it was all over Rome. It was just a matter of time. That is why the US is a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy. The gridlock inherant in our constitution is not a bug but a feature that protects minority rights. Of course our Founding Fathers were a bunch of dead white men so we should scrap the constitution or something like that.

Posted by: Shtetl G at January 04, 2013 04:57 PM (L2eC5)

338 Derp, I missed DAve saying the same thing.

Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2013 04:58 PM (cgXOM)

339 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 04:58 PM (9KqcB)

340 >>>I'm just saying the answer is probably unknowable, and effectively moot anyway.

The point of my post, of listing 3 suggestions of the powerful effect of pathogens and poisons on brain development and functioning, was to suggest that this might be a very fruitful area for *medical science.*

What if scientists did more study and were able to figure out how to cure schizophrenia? Or even mental retardation (if it's caught early enough)?

But we seem to be viewing this only through the lens of "Does this help our immediate political interests"?

Crazy-- and this is a leftist mode of thinking. Whatever serves the cause must be true and all that.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 04:58 PM (LCRYB)

341 I'm pretty sure lead in the gasoline didn't CAUSE gas station attendants to have a low IQ.

Posted by: Whatev at January 04, 2013 04:58 PM (lreFA)

342 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 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 04:58 PM (bb5+k)

343 Robert Plant and Jimmy Page were in Led Zeppelin for forty years and... no, never mind...

Posted by: DAve at January 04, 2013 04:58 PM (XDC0v)

344 Re the lead exposure causes criminal activity hypothesis. Put me in the "further study is needed" category, but only if the studies are well-controlled experimental ones on physiological effects of lead (which I guess would have to be done with primates). I don't think much can be gleaned by data mining crime rates etc. But if there is a causative effective of lead on impulse control or violence or what-have-you, that could certainly be done in a lab setting.

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 04:59 PM (5H6zj)

345 What about us?

Posted by: 8 tracks at January 04, 2013 04:59 PM (m8PQQ)

346 There should be a higher instance of criminality among fishermen. As they handle lead weights, even using teeth to open and close split-shot sinkers. Posted by: Cicero Kid

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 at January 04, 2013 04:59 PM (KDq5l)

347 338 It happens and yet we love you still

Posted by: DAve at January 04, 2013 04:59 PM (XDC0v)

348 Give me a fucking break. Abortion breaks across all "crowds."

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 04:59 PM (5DR1j)

349 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 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 05:00 PM (XkotV)

350 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. (yes I know racism and all that).

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 05:00 PM (HDgX3)

351
Crime began dropping in the early 90s because of changes in sentencing. It has nothing to do with fucking lead.

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:00 PM (ymJbM)

352 >>>isn't the dispassionate, cold and logical discussion of science-- it's motive is to discredit Republicans, and their political theories while advancing their own religion of controlling human behavior via "The Environment".

I consider the article itself, Kevin Drum, and Mother Jones to be trivial concerns.

The thing that's interesting is the papers the article describes.

I'm not going to argue with you that MJ isn't left-liberal or that Kevin Drum doesn't have exactly the motive you describe. They do, he does. I also think that's very much at the bottom of the list of "interesting questions posed here."

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:00 PM (LCRYB)

353 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)

354
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 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)

355 There goes the smart military blog. Next up phrenology and divination science.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 05:01 PM (NIZHJ)

356 @350

I'm sensing a strong correlation between Reagan and crime. Further study is needed!

Posted by: JDTAY at January 04, 2013 05:01 PM (a0nis)

357 Lead lowers crime if introduced into a criminal at high enough velocity.

This is why it's worth reading the comments even up into the 300's.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 04, 2013 05:01 PM (46pA5)

358 344 - Put me in the "further study is needed" category
----
Just to be safe, lets assume its true until enough people believe it, and ban bullets.

Better safe than sorry!

Posted by: Koolaid at January 04, 2013 05:01 PM (lreFA)

359 There is also a correlation on average global climate temps rising, and the recent rise of Piracy on the high seas.

More pirate attacks correlate to higher global temperatures.

Posted by: Kristophr at January 04, 2013 05:01 PM (wYVte)

360 At least Mother Jones knows their audience.

Mother Jones can't get to the science without first filling their audience's hate tank with seven paragraphs on how Rudy Giuliani really didn't accomplish anything.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:01 PM (r2PLg)

361
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 05:01 PM (4u2LN)

362 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 05:02 PM (W6iIX)

363 The article may be accurate but then again it's from Mother Jones and I don't trust that rag to include contradictory information.

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 05:02 PM (IPSPJ)

364 351 You mean like "three strikes"? I'd believe that... probably 20% of the criminals commit 80% of the crime...

Posted by: DAve at January 04, 2013 05:02 PM (XDC0v)

365 Maybe lead REDUCES crime-----as in, I'm carrying some.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 04, 2013 05:02 PM (MPjT8)

366 "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."

You're a liar. Look it up, kids!

Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 05:02 PM (Hz1zc)

367 >>>Cute Ace, but no. The point is, what's the point of continued study? Lead is bad for you. No shit, we all know that. How does this study, or further studies, benefit anything or anyone?

as I said in an above post, I think a lot of medical doctors, medical scientists, neurologists, etc., might find some value in finding some things that derange the operation of the brain. Because, having found what deranges the brain's operation or development, they might then find the mechanism of derangement, and then we might have immunizations or even cures for some really bad things that happen to people (that don't necessarily have to happen).

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:02 PM (LCRYB)

368 324 isn't it common sense to look at hereditary factors when looking at impulsivity and IQ? ADHD has a strong genetic component, as do spectrum disorders.


------


It's because it's so hard to separate parenting from genetics, there. But since you brought up ADHD and other spectrum disorders, I think that that's another piece of the puzzle. More people are diagnosed and treated for ADHD (yes, maybe too many) than used to be. A ton of criminal behavior comes down to impulse control---if you have untreated ADHD, you have shitty impulse control. Treat it, and a lot of the impulse control improves. There's also a surprising correlation between ADHD treatment and addiction---children who are diagnosed ADHD but not treated with stimulants are much more likely than the average to develop a substance abuse problem. Children who are diagnosed and treated with stimulants see their risk of substance abuse problems drop to the average or just above. It's fascinating.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 05:02 PM (b+8h9)

369 350 - Same here. That decrease is staggering.

Posted by: Heralder at January 04, 2013 05:03 PM (+xmn4)

370
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 05:03 PM (bb5+k)

371 >>>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.

But when gangs started infiltrating smaller cities, that changed. Don't go all fucking prog on us, Ace.

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:03 PM (ymJbM)

372 Mother Jones? Yeah, I fucked her.

Posted by: Donkey Kong at January 04, 2013 05:03 PM (NIZHJ)

373 my issue with rationalism (maybe i'm stretching the term) is when science starts being broadly applied to draw conclusions about what're essentially moral questions, this isn't an example of that though

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 05:03 PM (60GaT)

374
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 holdsthat there is no safe level (i.e., no threshold for toxicity) for lots of things.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 04, 2013 05:03 PM (4u2LN)

375 What's the spot price on lead? $4/lb? $10/lb? Whatever, lets tax lead at $30/lb. Problem solved.

Posted by: Koolaid at January 04, 2013 05:04 PM (lreFA)

376 when a baby's born mentally retarded, it's not just magic. There is a *reason* the baby's mentally retarded. We don't know what that reason is. We assume it has something to do with physical damage to the structure of the brain or the wrong mix of chemicals while in the womb or some kind of genetic cause. But we don't know.

It sure would be useful to know why, though.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:04 PM (LCRYB)

377 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.

---

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 05:05 PM (5H6zj)

378 One can employ discrimination, you know.
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 05:05 PM (X70gw)

379 >>>Conservatism should have no fear of legitimate inquiry.

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 05:05 PM (0q2P7)

380 Wait a second. I got it. George W. Bush was alive in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Therefore crime increased.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 05:05 PM (HDgX3)

381 You seem to be arguing the position that we should never bother searching for correlations, as correlations are, by definition, irrelevant and illogical and wholly without scientific interest!

That's not my argument at all.

My argument is that an announcement of a correlation is not meaningful evidence. It's noticing a pattern - someone could be inclined to see if it warrants further investigation. That's the stage where this research is right now.

In order to argue against global warming "science" you're willing to toss out an entire powerful branch of science. Essentially you're saying "who needs science anyway?"

No, I'm a fan of science. Science should always be approached as arguing with a skeptic. He is rational, but, if there is any room for error in your results, he will reject your theory.

This type of correlation is very, very loose: there are too many other variables involved to claim there is a direct link. You need controlled studies to be convincing.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 04, 2013 05:06 PM (IyKYr)

382
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 05:06 PM (dC04t)

383 Otherwise, I'm not sure what the purpose would be of mining criminal statistics and trying to tease out causation/correlation.

Jobs program for grant writers/bureaucrats who approve grants.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 05:06 PM (ZKzrr)

384 "Did Leaded Gasoline Fuel the 60s-80s Crimewave?"

No, but it could explain the popularity of leisure suits and disco.

Posted by: mrp at January 04, 2013 05:06 PM (HjPtV)

385
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 whowas 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 05:06 PM (4u2LN)

386 I thought the rule was to look at who funded the studies, then you don't even have to read them cause you'll know the outcome already.

Posted by: the kid at January 04, 2013 05:06 PM (/b8+5)

387 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 to mention that the real culprit is that favorite bugaboo of the left, Big Oil.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 05:06 PM (XUKZU)

388 Yes, we do know what causes retardation: oxygen deprivation, genetic abnormalities, pku...

pku is a lack of some enzyme necessary to digest milk. If you don't have it, brain damage will result. All they have to do is put the baby on a different diet.

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:07 PM (ymJbM)

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)

390 376 when a baby's born mentally retarded, it's not just magic. There is a *reason* the baby's mentally retarded. We don't know what that reason is. We assume it has something to do with physical damage to the structure of the brain or the wrong mix of chemicals while in the womb or some kind of genetic cause. But we don't know.

It sure would be useful to know why, though.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:04 PM (LCRYB)



All true. And still has fuck-all to do with lead exposure. A genetic condition causing mental retardation at birth and lead exposure which may, or may not, cause a physical injury to the brain are not even closely related.

You're better than this ace.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 05:08 PM (IvVLN)

391 There may be value in further study, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be more value in studying something else. The thing about resources is that they're limited, which means that we have to prioritize their use.

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 05:08 PM (Tt6ky)

392 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)

393 Wow, the Small Government types, the types who proudly say "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.


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 05:08 PM (5DR1j)

394 And there is mandatory testing of all infants for pku.

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:08 PM (ymJbM)

395 Crime began dropping in the early 90s because of changes in sentencing. It has nothing to do with fucking lead.


----

I seriously do not get arguments like this. Most things have more than one cause. You don't get a cavity only because you don't brush your teeth enough or only because you eat too many sugars/carbs or only because you don't get fluoride in your water---if that was the case just fixing one would do the trick. It's even more true when you're talking about something like a crime rate which deals with so many different things happening in different places. No one is saying that lead exposure is the only cause for the crime drop; just that it might be part of it.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 05:08 PM (b+8h9)

396 FoxB scrunt pushing Oconee Countyy Sheriff with all the common gun grabber BS lies.


Sure these assholes are conservative.

Posted by: Vic at January 04, 2013 05:08 PM (53z96)

397 Would it help if they made the prisons out of lead or would that just be a band-aid approach?

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 05:08 PM (oKVrA)

398 I consider the article itself, Kevin Drum, and Mother Jones to be trivial concerns.

The thing that's interesting is the papers the article describes.

I'm not going to argue with you that MJ isn't left-liberal or that Kevin Drum doesn't have exactly the motive you describe. They do, he does. I also think that's very much at the bottom of the list of "interesting questions posed here."

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:00 PM (LCRYB)

----------------------------------

Well obviously even Kevin Drum does't agree with you.

The fact that he spends seven initial paragraphs debunking Rudy's policies and their results is the big, huge tell--that those policies are probably the answer to the riddle and even Kevin Drum knows it.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:09 PM (r2PLg)

399 >>>Not to mention that the real culprit is that favorite bugaboo of the left, Big Oil.

yes but lead is an additive to gasoline, it's not naturally present.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:09 PM (LCRYB)

400 Look over at Drudge.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 05:09 PM (NIZHJ)

401 "You'd think, wouldn't you? Current toxicological/ regulatory theology
commonly holdsthat there is no safe level (i.e., no threshold for
toxicity) for lots of things."

A direct correlation with the increasing number of congressional manna grants over the same period of time.

Posted by: mrp at January 04, 2013 05:09 PM (HjPtV)

402
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 05:10 PM (4u2LN)

403 ace: Wow, the Small Government types [...] 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.


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 05:10 PM (eHIJJ)

404 There is also a correlation on average global climate temps rising, and the recent rise of Piracy on the high seas.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 05:10 PM (X70gw)

405 Steyn's column is out.
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/336944

Woo!

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 05:10 PM (ZKzrr)

406 Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 05:02 PM (Hz1zc)
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 05:10 PM (cgXOM)

407 yes but lead is an additive to gasoline, it's not naturally present.
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 05:10 PM (W6iIX)

408 Lead consumption has be known to dramatically stop crime on an individual basis, so there's that.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 04, 2013 05:10 PM (aZ6ew)

409 398

you can extract certain info from something without agreeing with the author's conclusions/motives on it

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 05:11 PM (60GaT)

410 Wasn't lead an additive to a lot of things in those days? Like paint. Now if you want to paint an old building in a big city you have to set up some kind of a tent so that when you sand the wood everyone doesn't have to breathe the lead paint residue in?

Posted by: the kid at January 04, 2013 05:11 PM (/b8+5)

411 >>396 FoxB scrunt pushing Oconee Countyy Sheriff with all the common gun grabber BS lies.

Oconee County GA or SC?

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 05:11 PM (oKVrA)

412 It is, of course, perfectly normal to judge a theory on what you believe to be the intentions of its proponents. That's an understandable reaction.

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 05:11 PM (Tt6ky)

413 The point is, what's the point of continued study?
Lead is bad for you. No shit, we all know that. How does this study, or
further studies, benefit anything or anyone?


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 05:12 PM (+lsX1)

414

You're better than this ace.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 05:08 PM (IvVLN)


99% of the time you are right. 1% of the time he throws something out that sounded retarded.

The last time I can think of he did it, he supported TARP.

Posted by: Truman North, idol of dozens at January 04, 2013 05:12 PM (I2LwF)

415
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 05:12 PM (4u2LN)

416 Things were so much better before gasoline. The streets were covered in horse shit.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 05:12 PM (NIZHJ)

417 not all men are taller than women duude

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 05:12 PM (60GaT)

418 High bilirubin also causes brain damage and retardation. Biliburin crosses the blood-brain barrier and is absorbed by the brain. Bilirubin causes jaundice. It is the inability of the liver to break down damaged blood cells. Remember, being born is like winning a prize fight. They have to get rid of all these damaged blood cells and their little livers aren't up for the job.

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:12 PM (ymJbM)

419 Ace I think you are mistaking a statement "This conclusion is not supported by science" with the statement "We don't want to listen to science"

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 05:13 PM (0q2P7)

420 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 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 05:13 PM (XkotV)

421 Leaded gas does not explain it because only part of the population was actively criminal and it was not in the suburbs. The answer is sociological. Something is happenning among the criminal subculture that is suppressing criminality, yet remains unexplained.

Posted by: Tantor at January 04, 2013 05:13 PM (659DL)

422 I'm only about 40% non retarded, so Ace is still like, way more not retarded.

Posted by: Truman North, idol of dozens at January 04, 2013 05:13 PM (I2LwF)

423 The cat cam vid in the sidebar gave me a headache.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 04, 2013 05:13 PM (UOM48)

424
See? We really ARE parasites!

Posted by: Democrats at January 04, 2013 05:13 PM (ggRof)

425 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 05:12 PM (+lsX1)



1) Ironic

2) How the fuck do you figure all that?

3) The point of information is to learn from it and benefit from it. What benefit is there from this?


Fuckwit.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 05:13 PM (IvVLN)

426 Once people start looking for something in earnest, they find it. And once someone names something, people start looking for it. So a kid whowas spacey and energetic in 1960 got smacked upside the head and told to pay attention, but now is "diagnosed" as "having ADHD."


------------

Or, that little boy who got smacked around in the 60s grew up to commit crimes in the 70s and 80s. And then everybody said "Oh, he was always a bad egg, we had to smack around him all the time". Then his sons or nephews growing up acting "spacey" in the 80s got treated and didn't commit so many crimes.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 05:14 PM (b+8h9)

427 I agree. This is retarded.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 05:14 PM (NIZHJ)

428 Something is happenning among the criminal subculture that is suppressing criminality, yet remains unexplained.
Posted by: Tantor at January 04, 2013 05:13 PM (659DL)

They don't want Barack to be mad at them, silly.

Posted by: the kid at January 04, 2013 05:14 PM (/b8+5)

429 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.

---

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 05:14 PM (5H6zj)

430 I posit that Flashdance Sweaters and Leg Warmers fueled the massive increase in crime in the 80's....... and music by Prince.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 04, 2013 05:15 PM (jucos)

431
Jesus! Correlation does not equal causation!

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:15 PM (ymJbM)

432 No, but it could explain the popularity of leisure suits and disco.
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 05:15 PM (X70gw)

433 @405

Good stuff.

Posted by: JDTAY at January 04, 2013 05:15 PM (a0nis)

434
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 05:15 PM (bb5+k)

435 How would any such study correct (except by wild guess) for all the people who moved from one city or state to another?

Posted by: 42756 at January 04, 2013 05:15 PM (i8c5b)

436 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 05:15 PM (W6iIX)

437 @Ace,

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 05:15 PM (5BEp7)

438 I'm only about 40% non retarded, so Ace is still like, way more not retarded.


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 05:16 PM (ZKzrr)

439 I'm sure this article would have been rejected by any scientific journal--unless it was published by--

Al Gore--or Al Jazeera.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:16 PM (r2PLg)

440
I think one of the reasons people are jumping on this with both feet isthe 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 05:16 PM (4u2LN)

441 So a kid whowas spacey and energetic in 1960 got smacked upside the head and told to pay attention, but now is "diagnosed" as "having ADHD.


Back then I didn't know better. Smack me upside the head now and lead poisoning is guaranteed.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 05:16 PM (GFM2b)

442 yes but lead is an additive to gasoline, it's not naturally present.

---

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 05:16 PM (XUKZU)

443 My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 05:16 PM (ZKzrr)




That inspires confidence.


I thought you were an Ette?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 05:17 PM (IvVLN)

444 ace, fear of finding causation is not the issue.

Lead bad, as the Hulk would say.

Chasing this goose is not optimal.

I would rather study non-continuous ecosystems and how plants and animals adapt to and create them.

Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 05:18 PM (EWsrI)

445
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 05:18 PM (4u2LN)

446 Someone needs to watch Idiocracy.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 05:18 PM (ZKzrr)

447 AlenG and others,

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 05:18 PM (UypUQ)

448 This really is a preposterous main blog post and a completely asinine underlying article. What fueled the crime waves of the 60's, 70's and 80's were, in no particular order: LBJ's "war on poverty," soft criminal laws promulgated by liberals, left-wing judges meting out weak justice, that period in the 70's in which the death penalty temporarily was abolished nationwide, left-wing economic policies, especially in big cities, left-wing social policies, especially in big cities, softening of crime fighting priorities, various restraints placed on police and other law enforcement, a move away from constructing prisons (which was reversed in the 1990's, with obvious results) and last but not least, liberals taking over K-12 education, especially in big cities.

Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at January 04, 2013 05:18 PM (pmsMR)

449 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.

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 05:19 PM (SY2Kh)

450 High bilirubin also causes brain damage and retardation. Biliburin crosses the blood-brain barrier and is absorbed by the brain. Bilirubin causes jaundice. It is the inability of the liver to break down damaged blood cells. Remember, being born is like winning a prize fight. They have to get rid of all these damaged blood cells and their little livers aren't up for the job.
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 05:19 PM (X70gw)

451 they have been putting lead in gasoline since at least the 1920's


-----

Yeah, but there weren't as many people driving gasoline-powered cars in the 1920s or before, so there would be fewer pregnant women, infants and toddlers inhaling the exhaust.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 05:20 PM (b+8h9)

452 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)


Heh

Posted by: Ronster at January 04, 2013 05:20 PM (JgkPs)

453 >>>A point seemingly lost on people who are speculating that it only took affect decades later.

You should read the article. It's about INCREASING rates of leaded gas consumption correlating with increasing crime, not leaded gas not existing (and crime, I guess, also not existing) until 1965 when BANG! both things sprung into being.

When consumption of leaded gasoline increased quickly (I guess in the postwar period), crime increased. When it declined, crime declined.

If we're going to talk about the 1920s we should probably mention that there were relatively few cars then.

Look, I'll say again that this is all speculative at this point and, as a betting man, I would bet, along with you, that any new correlation found is likely bullshit ( which is where most correlations wind up, on the bullshit pile).

I suppose I have to allow that on that point -- a STATISTICAL point -- you're most likely right in your biases. Ironically, it's a statistical correlation that saves you, even as you deny the usefulness of statistical correlations.

But I do sense a very weird "Everything worth knowing is already known"/End of History as regards science sort of bias operating here.

It's like you *begrudgingly* accept current scientific facts as necessary evils but sure don't want to add more to the pile.



Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:20 PM (LCRYB)

454 This really is a preposterous main blog post and a
completely asinine underlying article. What fueled the crime waves of
the 60's, 70's and 80's were, in no particular order: LBJ's "war on
poverty," soft criminal laws promulgated by liberals, left-wing judges
meting out weak justice, that period in the 70's in which the death
penalty temporarily was abolished nationwide, left-wing economic
policies, especially in big cities, left-wing social policies,
especially in big cities, softening of crime fighting priorities,
various restraints placed on police and other law enforcement, a move
away from constructing prisons (which was reversed in the 1990's, with
obvious results) and last but not least, liberals taking over K-12
education, especially in big cities.

Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at January 04, 2013 05:18 PM (pmsMR)

Yup.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 05:20 PM (bb5+k)

455 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 05:18 PM (UypUQ)

_________________

It didn't make it that far--but of course!


Stimulus II part 230

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:20 PM (r2PLg)

456 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.
---

^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 05:21 PM (5H6zj)

457
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 forall 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 05:21 PM (dC04t)

458 A new explanation for Hitler, Stailin, Mao, Pol Pot, Richard Nixon and Olver Stone.

Posted by: georgeofthedesert at January 04, 2013 05:22 PM (Eq2MX)

459 There are better science writers out there for you--

Kevin Drum ain't it.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:22 PM (r2PLg)

460 Lead---it's what plants crave.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 04, 2013 05:22 PM (MPjT8)

461 "Assassin’s’ Creed III has demonstrated a desire among gamers to play around with the turbulent history of the United States, even to question (albeit obliquely, in that game) jingoistic, sanitized certainties about a story that intertwines liberty with slavery and the benefits of exploration, expansion and opportunity with the crimes of invasion, genocide and cultural extermination We're portraying everything as it was. We're not candy-coating it.

A new game, Meriwether, currently nearing the end of a Kickstarter appeal, seeks to explore one of the most fascinating episodes in America’s story, the Corps of Discovery Expedition by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, to map a route from the newly formed United States - essentially a conglomeration of former British colonies in Atlantic North America - to the far-distant Pacific"


OT, but whatcha think?

Posted by: Jordan at January 04, 2013 05:22 PM (Hz1zc)

462
I think it was tie-dye and bell bottoms.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2013 05:22 PM (69Mdf)

463 The baby boom explanation is the most logical one. The baby boom lasted from 1946 to 1964.

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 05:23 PM (HDgX3)

464 My grandpa had a car in 1920 and he was a goddamned saint!

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 05:23 PM (+lsX1)

465 A new explanation for Hitler, Stailin, Mao, Pol Pot, Richard Nixon and Olver Stone.


Don't forget Michael Moore.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2013 05:23 PM (GFM2b)

466 >>>This really is a preposterous main blog post and a completely asinine underlying article. What fueled the crime waves of the 60's, 70's and 80's were, in no particular order: LBJ's "war on poverty," soft criminal laws promulgated by liberals, left-wing judges meting out weak justice, that period in the 70's in which the death penalty temporarily was abolished nationwide, left-wing economic policies, especially in big cities, left-wing social policies, especially in big cities, softening of crime fighting priorities, various restraints placed on police and other law enforcement, a move away from constructing prisons (which was reversed in the 1990's, with obvious results) and last but not least, liberals taking over K-12 education, especially in big cities.

And people say conservative minds tend to be closed, preferring to regurgitate received wisdom, reassured verities.

Well, I see that some of us know all there is that needs knowin'. Fine, and congratulations, I suppose.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:23 PM (LCRYB)

467
Disco didn't help.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2013 05:23 PM (69Mdf)

468 Don't forget Michael Moore.

---

They put lead in pizza?

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 05:24 PM (XUKZU)

469 It's actually Carbon you need to watch out for, wingnuts.

Posted by: ManBearPig at January 04, 2013 05:24 PM (NIZHJ)

470 Disco didn't help.

It certainly makes me stabby.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 05:24 PM (ZKzrr)

471 I'm pretty sure lead in the gasoline didn't CAUSE gas station attendants to have a low IQ.

I was a gas station attendant with an IQ well north of 130. I'd have 200 some cars lined up in front of the pumps -- it was a combo gas/car wash operation -- get enough gas, the wash was free. The 'boss' could have hire two people to do the job, but figured I could handle it, which I did. (I still can leap three feet over a gas hose without pulling it out of the fill) But back in the days of leaded gasoline, when unemployment rates were so close to zero, employers scrambled to find employees. Help wanted signs were everywhere. I worked three part time jobs a week while attending high school.

This is just more of the libs trying to push blame for their own policies on some boogie man -- like BIG OIL or LACK OF BIG GOVERNMENT. Crime rates soared because the population of 15 to 30 years olds -- the 'sweet spot' of criminality soared. When prisons got built, and that huge contingent spent that 'sweet spot' behind bars, crime rates lowered. The attempt to find some other 'environmental' cause is just plain silly. But entertaining.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 04, 2013 05:24 PM (feFL6)

472 Disco didn't help.

------

Heh. Lead exposure just might explain disco, actually.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 05:24 PM (b+8h9)

473 I think the major reason that crime rates declined was that more prisons
got built, and the criminals spent the next decade or two cooling off.


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 05:24 PM (hc3eM)

474 A child is born with no state of mind

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 05:24 PM (L2eC5)

475 Education

Drum attended Caltech for two years before transferring to California State University, Long Beach where he received his bachelor's degree in journalism in 1981. While at CSULB he served as city editor of the university's student run newspaper, the Daily 49er.
[wiki]

_____________________

No wonder I've got an urge to lock this schmuck up in a chem lab.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:25 PM (r2PLg)

476 I like that there are so many scientists (and engineers) here.

Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 05:25 PM (5H6zj)

477
"Absentee Fathers and the Newtown School Shooting"



http://preview.tinyurl.com/azok28y

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 04, 2013 05:25 PM (bb5+k)

478
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 05:25 PM (7v5Ct)

479
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 05:25 PM (4u2LN)

480 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 05:26 PM (W6iIX)

481 Can someone please explain to me the Gangnam Style hype? That song really fucking sucks, so I guess I'm missing something.

Posted by: © Sponge at January 04, 2013 05:26 PM (UK9cE)

482 this is weird and I feel strongly as if I'm debating religion, but no one's using the word.

The brain is currently an undiscovered country and we barely understand how it operates or what causes its many dysfunctions (intellectual, moral).

I think some people would rather it stay that way... as they would rather have the descent of the species remain a mystery. In areas of mystery, the mystical can exist. Where science intrudes, the mystical tends to recede.

Fine. I'm not among them. I believe this is a religious argument now and no good can come of it. So I bow out.



Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:26 PM (LCRYB)

483
I appreciate medical studies and research for diseases.

But this seems more like a poli-sci study masquerading as a medical study.

I didn't read it, just assuming by the conclusion.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2013 05:26 PM (LVtr+)

484 >>>But I do sense a very weird "Everything worth knowing is already
known"/End of History as regards science sort of bias operating here.


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 05:27 PM (0q2P7)

485 Completely O/T but is Jack Reacher worth seeing? It's colder than the Oval Office in August here so I'm looking for indoor activities for the weekend.

Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 05:27 PM (5H6zj)

486 I still think it was the Twinkie scourge.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 05:27 PM (X70gw)

487 467
Disco didn't help.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2013 05:23 PM (69Mdf)

__________________

It was the strobe lights--that fired of the ADHD synapses--manifesting in a collective crime wave!!1

Kevin Drum Knows It All!--Just Ask Him!

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:27 PM (r2PLg)

488 468
Don't forget Michael Moore.

---

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 05:27 PM (HDgX3)

489
Can someone please explain to me the Gangnam Style hype? That song really fucking sucks, so I guess I'm missing something.

---

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 05:27 PM (XUKZU)

490 But this seems more like a poli-sci study masquerading as a medical study.

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 05:28 PM (ZKzrr)

491 fired *off*--shit.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:28 PM (r2PLg)

492 >>>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.


this benefit of incarceration is called incapacitation, and it seems to be of far more usefulness than even deterrence.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:28 PM (LCRYB)

493 What's next Bigfoot or Ghosts? Coast to Coast.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 05:28 PM (NIZHJ)

494 This really is a preposterous main blog post and a

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 05:29 PM (+lsX1)

495 Fine. I'm not among them. I believe this is a religious argument now and no good can come of it. So I bow out.
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 05:29 PM (W6iIX)

496 Ahhh, it's a religious thing. Gotcha.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 05:29 PM (IvVLN)

497 Speaking of that fat fuck, he posted some rant today about walking.

---

Michael Moore: Expert in Everything or, as we intellectuals call it, everythingology.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 04, 2013 05:29 PM (XUKZU)

498
I think I'll watch that old conservative favorite, Barcelona.

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:29 PM (ymJbM)

499 This is just government subsidized bullshit to try and get the masses to believe that the government has made decisions that are good and they actually are "here to help."

Fuck that noise.......

Posted by: © Sponge at January 04, 2013 05:29 PM (UK9cE)

500 The brain is currently an undiscovered country and we barely understand
how it operates or what causes its many dysfunctions (intellectual,
moral).
-----

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 05:30 PM (5H6zj)

501 482 this is weird and I feel strongly as if I'm debating religion, but no one's using the word.

The brain is currently an undiscovered country and we barely understand how it operates or what causes its many dysfunctions (intellectual, moral).

I think some people would rather it stay that way... as they would rather have the descent of the species remain a mystery. In areas of mystery, the mystical can exist. Where science intrudes, the mystical tends to recede.

Fine. I'm not among them. I believe this is a religious argument now and no good can come of it. So I bow out.



Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:26 PM (LCRYB)

_____________________

The religion--Environmentalism.

Instead of placing it where it belongs--Kevin Drum et al--you project it.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:30 PM (r2PLg)

502 Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 04, 2013 05:24 PM (feFL6)

----

An IQ of 130 makes you an outlier anyway. Lead could damage you and you'd still be fine.

But that's not really the point---the lead exposure link has to do with teens who were exposed to lead as babies and young children, when their brains were most vulnerable. Adults and teens are way different---we can also get (and usually do) CMV and be no worse for the wear, but if a fetus is exposed, he or she will be damaged (CMV is the leading cause of developmental delay in the US).

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 05:30 PM (b+8h9)

503 Jack Reacher = Kinda generic, imo. You had lines like "Thanks for the coffee, counselor" as our hero investigator abruptly ends the conversation with the lawyer.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 05:30 PM (UypUQ)

504 i think some people just think talking IQ effects, external factors, etc. etc. are some kind of slippery slope to engaging in some kind of determinism that sidelines morality.

i myself generally roll my eyes at the Left's "culture doesn't matter, or it does, but wherever it's currently progressing is A-OK" mentality but i don't think the two things above are necessarily in conflict with each other.

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 05:31 PM (60GaT)

505 493 What's next Bigfoot or Ghosts? Coast to Coast.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 05:28 PM (NIZHJ)


So is NIZHJ a troll?

Because its style and content are constantly twigging my trollmeter.

Posted by: Mætenloch at January 04, 2013 05:31 PM (XkotV)

506 I've had lead in my pencil all my life.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 05:32 PM (X70gw)

507
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 05:32 PM (4u2LN)

508

>>> Especially since the conclusion was "MOAR GUBMINT MONEES!!"

and capitalism is the root cause!!

Posted by: soothsayer at January 04, 2013 05:32 PM (wAng0)

509 So is NIZHJ a troll?



I don't think it is. But I certainly could be wrong.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 05:32 PM (IvVLN)

510 Long time lurker. Prolly OT

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 05:32 PM (bvqC9)

511 I'm surprised at you guys. Don't you know that the crime rate declined cause they made sure EVERYONE got into college.

Come on can't believe you didn't realize this.

Posted by: Caustic at January 04, 2013 05:32 PM (/b8+5)

512 How did you guys go 500 comments into this story without mentioning the obvious:

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 05:32 PM (TUl/a)

513 >>503
Jack Reacher = Kinda generic, imo.

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 05:32 PM (5H6zj)

514 Scientists learn early on to pick their battles.

Some scientists may think lead/crime is their own personal Higgs boson.

This scientists says meh.

Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 05:33 PM (EWsrI)

515 Maybe smart people commit just as many crimes, but get caught less often.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 04, 2013 05:34 PM (46pA5)

516 #AwfulFirstDraftDialogue


'Tis the funneh.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 04, 2013 05:34 PM (KDq5l)

517 Instead of placing it where it belongs--Kevin Drum et al--you project it.


------

Kevin Drum = Blind squirrel.

Lead Exposure-criminality link= possible nut.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 05:34 PM (b+8h9)

518 Especially since the conclusion was "MOAR GUBMINT MONEES!!

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 05:34 PM (+lsX1)

519 They removed lead from paint because it was harming children THAT ATE IT.

That makes all the sense in the world. Make paint edible and all this goes away, right?

Posted by: © Sponge at January 04, 2013 05:34 PM (UK9cE)

520 >>Posted by: Eye Tie at January 04, 2013 05:32 PM (bvqC9)

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 05:34 PM (5H6zj)

521 Okay I guess we are not allowed to argue one of the Left's most effective weapons--

debunking Republican policies while --

BORROWING AUTHORITY--from science.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:34 PM (r2PLg)

522 If there was anyway to tie this study to lead absorption (and absorption methods) and retention levels in criminals, it might be more compelling.

Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2013 05:35 PM (w3+gB)

523 The atheist accuses the arguers of--

blind religion--beautiful.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:35 PM (r2PLg)

524 Again, we know a lot about what causes retardation:

in utereo infections
oxygen deprivation
genetic defects
substances crossing the blood-brain barrier

In fact, I'm not aware of any mysteries.

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:35 PM (ymJbM)

525 >>Posted by: Eye Tie at January 04, 2013 05:32 PM (bvqC9)

Kick-ass.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 04, 2013 05:36 PM (ZKzrr)

526 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 05:36 PM (W6iIX)

527 512

collective liberal malaria since 2001?

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 05:36 PM (60GaT)

528 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 05:34 PM (5H6zj)



Dear Leader is MVP for the Home and Away teams.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 04, 2013 05:36 PM (IvVLN)

529 >>>You cannot determine the answers to how the brain functions using decades old crime statistics and fuzzy environmental data on atmospheric lead.

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)

530 Posted by: Eye Tie at January 04, 2013 05:32 PM (bvqC9)



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 05:37 PM (UK9cE)

531 Yes, Jack Reacher is "on par" movie entertainment. The first 45 minutes are a good start, actually... as the story setup is fairly intriguing. The Reacher character, though, is hampered by not having any character fualts or quirks to speak of. Other than he likes buses.

Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2013 05:37 PM (UypUQ)

532
Never saw somebody delurk with a marriage proposal before.

But what the hell, go for it.


Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2013 05:37 PM (69Mdf)

533 Which, by the way, I happen to believe, too.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:37 PM (LCRYB)

534 I think the polls were wrong because of lead.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 04, 2013 05:37 PM (46pA5)

535 >>>The brain is currently an undiscovered country


That would make it the Final Frontier.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 05:37 PM (oKVrA)

536 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 05:34 PM (5H6zj)


------------------------------------------------


And Heatherradish is a guy.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 05:37 PM (X70gw)

537 as for your point about "occurring in the lab"--

sure, but scientists do not test *every* chemical and particle in existence. Statistical analyses (epidemiology is one big ball of statistics, yes?) informs them as to which things to put under the microscope.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:38 PM (LCRYB)

538 red: "Again, we know a lot about what causes retardation:"

A fine list but you forgot MS/NBC.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 04, 2013 05:38 PM (eHIJJ)

539 "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.
"

Getting closer, Ace. Guns, lead, gun ranges.

Posted by: mrp at January 04, 2013 05:38 PM (HjPtV)

540 Comparing lead levels in people would be actual science.

Posted by: Butters at January 04, 2013 05:38 PM (NIZHJ)

541 Ban gasoline, for the (former) children!

Posted by: Karusky at January 04, 2013 05:38 PM (dO4L7)

542 Posted by: Eye Tie at January 04, 2013 05:32 PM (bvqC9

It's cool that your halfway house lets you guys have a softball team.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 04, 2013 05:38 PM (+lsX1)

543 (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 05:28 PM (ZKzrr)



1

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 04, 2013 05:39 PM (HDgX3)

544 Really, since people are starting to consider not going to college they're panicked that their gravy train might end. Ergo, put out some fluff about lead when what you are really trying to point out is that the crime rate has dropped. Next, another article pointing out the crime rate has dropped because people are more educated and need to be encourage to take on thousands in student loans to get that education that will prevent them from being a criminal. It's easy when you learn lib/think

Posted by: The Lobby for Lead at January 04, 2013 05:39 PM (/b8+5)

545 I'm betting the defacto "mainstreaming" of illegal drugs starting in the 60's had something to do with it too.

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 05:39 PM (hc3eM)

546 This is all. Utter.Bullshit.

Posted by: Charles "Paintchips" Manson at January 04, 2013 05:39 PM (4S7hN)

547 Ya' know, now that I think about it, this lead theory could explain the SCOAMT getting elected twice. Hmmmm.

Posted by: Soona at January 04, 2013 05:40 PM (X70gw)

548 If this exposure to lead premise is true, why aren't more people criminals?

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:40 PM (ymJbM)

549 Instead of yelling at the commenters, it might have been better to explain why taking a rational look at this study would not lead, as knee-jerk liberals want, to disproving free will.

Posted by: JohnJ at January 04, 2013 05:40 PM (Tt6ky)

550 376 when a baby's born mentally retarded, it's not just magic. There is a *reason* the baby's mentally retarded. We don't know what that reason is. We assume it has something to do with physical damage to the structure of the brain or the wrong mix of chemicals while in the womb or some kind of genetic cause. But we don't know.

It sure would be useful to know why, though.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:04 PM
-----
Just read a book on Genetics....so I knew it was something wrong in the early formation of the chromosones. Could be even before conception.
I'm sure there are other causes as well, but the main type we typically are familiar with is down syndrome is too many genes on the 21st chromosone. So it is happens early in the development stages before the brain is even formed. I'm no expert.....here is a start if anyone is interested at Wikipedia.
...................
http://tinyurl.com/o7m53

Posted by: John Stark Dark at January 04, 2013 05:40 PM (0JB89)

551 Maybe unleaded gasoline prevents crime?

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 04, 2013 05:40 PM (46pA5)

552 I can easily disprove this theory in a few ways.

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 05:41 PM (wpkYX)

553 If you have one bucket that contains 2 gallons and another bucket that contains 7 gallons, how many buckets do you have?

2, if these a fully self actualized content buckets with high self esteem.

Posted by: @PurpAv at January 04, 2013 05:41 PM (hc3eM)

554 An IQ of 130 makes you an outlier anyway.

An outlier? You take that back, damnit or I'm gonna track you down and smash you in the mouth and steal all your credit cards and burn your house to the ground.

Nah, not really. My wife tells other people I'm the kindest, gentlest person she's ever met in her life. Apparently despite my having my nose down a leaded gasoline tailpipe for at least eight hours a day in my youth.

I'd like to look at the PEL's of leaded gasoline, where some actual animal studies were involved before accepting some shaky assumption with even shakier correlation. But it is an entertaining thread.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 04, 2013 05:41 PM (feFL6)

555 sheez Sponge. Humor ? you speak it ?

Posted by: Eye Tie at January 04, 2013 05:41 PM (bvqC9)

556 Think horses, not zebras.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 04, 2013 05:41 PM (evdj2)

557 The brain is currently an undiscovered country

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 05:42 PM (69Mdf)

558 Bottom line: lead exposure today for almost everybody is almost
certainly way below the threshold level that results in serious
problems.


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 05:44 PM (SY2Kh)

559 So is understanding the lady parts. I don't even think the ladies understand the lady parts.

You spelled country wrong.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 04, 2013 05:44 PM (46pA5)

560 We need more alchemy threads like this.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 04, 2013 05:44 PM (oKVrA)

561
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 05:45 PM (dC04t)

562 545 I'm betting the defacto "mainstreaming" of illegal drugs starting in the 60's had something to do with it too.

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
.................................................................
I would have to agree with PurpAv's Synopsis. This was my first thought. only not quite as succinct. My actual thought was more like, "Dude...it was the f*cking drugs, man". (spoken like Cheech Marin)

Posted by: John Stark Dark at January 04, 2013 05:46 PM (0JB89)

563 Damn liberals--

are always after my Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:46 PM (r2PLg)

564 I'd like to a see study that compares kids born 1973 to 1978 with kids born 1979 to 1983.

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 05:47 PM (HDgX3)

565 Let us say we demonstrate that actute or chronic lead
exposure causes increased criminal activity.

Then what?

Ban lead in gasoline and paint?



Posted by: eman at January 04, 2013 05:47 PM (EWsrI)

566 Who is hot btw.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:47 PM (r2PLg)

567 >>>Instead of yelling at the commenters, it might have been better to explain why taking a rational look at this study would not lead, as knee-jerk liberals want, to disproving free will.

I'm not yelling. I'm disagreeing.

But I do consider this tendency to view everything first, second, and last through the prism of politics, and how many chits it delivers into your bag of political proofs (or takes away from that bag), to be just a low sort of results-driven thinking. If it helps my basic belief, it's true; if it undermines it in any fashion, it's not true.

We see this on the left and on the right. The right being the party of reason (or claiming the mantle of such), we ought to be a bit better than that.

I get the skepticism and, like I commented early, on a *statistical* level, it's warranted, as most statistical analyses are bullshit (and, ironically, statistics demonstrates this). And perhaps I didn't show enough of it (though I did mention I have a "bias" towards this theory, thus acknowledging my own compromised state on evaluating this).

But rejectivism is not skepticism; rejectism is sure whereas skepticism is unsure. Rejectivism lacks any skepticism about one's own skepticism.

John Lott's study "More Guns, Less Crime" relies on the same sort of statistical tools and the same sort of strongly-suggestive statistical correlations as this one.

This ham-fisted dismissal of any new proposal is just weak.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:47 PM (LCRYB)

568 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

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 05:47 PM (Sp8J7)

569 why not take samples from actual criminals in jail and see what their lead levels are and compare?

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 05:48 PM (SY2Kh)

570 OK. Didn't have time to read all the comments, but if anyone can tell Ace directly, the guy to start with in the area of heavy metals and criminal conduct is probably Roger Masters of Dartmouth. And those who wrote with him.

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 05:49 PM (290l2)

571 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.


Because all the lead paint magically disappeared after it was banned, right?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 05:50 PM (SY2Kh)

572 529
>>>You cannot determine the answers to how the brain functions
using decades old crime statistics and fuzzy environmental data on
atmospheric lead.



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 05:50 PM (5H6zj)

573
Wait.... are they still using leaded crystal in the congressional dining room?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2013 05:51 PM (69Mdf)

574 why aren't places where they mine for lead, where throughout history have had high levels of lead in the enviroment


-----

Probably has to do with how they use the lead. The 40s and 50s were unique in how the car exploded into every day life, spewing lead-filled exhaust. Breathing in the exhaust would ensure the most exposure for the most vulnerable people---those still in utero and too young to mine or even really play in the dirt.

There are other confounders, too---I know that El Paso children had abnormally high levels of lead in their blood (because of exposure to cars full of Mexican fuel, the soil, and---according to opponents---ASARCO) but a surprisingly low rate of violent crime for a city of its size, location and demographics (young population, lots of poverty). It's been seriously put forward that naturally occurring lithium in the water might explain the low crime rate in EP. Maybe areas with a lot of naturally-occuring lead also tend to have another factor like that?

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 05:51 PM (b+8h9)

575 Ugh! I don't know what I did that killed the formatting. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Y-not at January 04, 2013 05:51 PM (5H6zj)

576 Rudy Giuliani will always be--

Public Enemy #1

to the Liberal NYC elitists.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:51 PM (r2PLg)

577 Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:47 PM (LCRYB)

Well played. Are you trying to say that we've devolved into sides and you have to agree with everything your side is espousing or you can't be a loyal member of the side. Thus when there are two sides there is no middle and thus no middle ground?

And your using the study and the rabid reaction of some commenters to make the point, gently?

Posted by: The Lobby for Lead at January 04, 2013 05:52 PM (/b8+5)

578 >>>he 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.

it's a fair point and I don't know the answer but I would tell you as a general matter that finding a statistical correlation involves *CONTROLLING FOR OTHER FACTORS* so that the one thing you're looking at isolated.

Other factors? Like people on welfare. We expect the crime rate to go up as more people live purposeless lives entirely on the dole. England has been pumping that sort of person out.

Now if England has had changes in other pro-crime factors, and yet hasn't experienced increases in crime rates to the levels where those factors would suggest, then that in turn suggests there's a negative factor at play.

But not having seen the original research I don't know. I dont' know if they address this or, like bad scientists, just ignore it as inconvenient.



Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:52 PM (LCRYB)

579 569
why not take samples from actual criminals in jail and see what their lead levels are and compare?

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 05:53 PM (5H6zj)

580 RUUUUUUUUDDDDDY!!!!!!!!

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 05:53 PM (r2PLg)

581 >>>But I do consider this tendency to view everything first, second, and last through the prism of politics, and how many chits it delivers into your bag of political proofs (or takes away from that bag), to be just a low sort of results-driven thinking.

A lot of us are looking at it through the prism of medical fact that you repeatedly ignore. Mental retardation is not a mystery.

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:54 PM (ymJbM)

582 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)


This is a really depressing thread.

People seem to be able to understand statistics and scientific methods and evidence and plausibility and whatever only under certain circumstances.

Liberals have more blind spots, I'll give everyone that - climate, criminology, economics, et al... but apparently a big chunk of the right has a few blind spots as well - including external influences on behavior.

It came up after Newtown with the discussion on mental illness and treatment - some people seem to think people with schizophrenia or depression just need to "man up" or whatever, that brain chemistry is a myth or something.

Whatever the cause, it is bizarre watching people who can disassemble weak science on climate or gun control with relative ease being so... well, reactionary on some study or another just because some dumbass leftist wrote an article about it.

I don't know whether the hypothesis is correct, but given a correlation it was probably worth looking into.

I think a lot of people distrust scientists in general because some of them are fraud, a lot of them are incompetent, and most of them declare themselves open purveyors of facts while hiding the data, either by actually *hiding* it (climate and medicine in particular), or by just doing their best to make it illegible to everyone else.

Skepticism isn't saying "that's all bullshit because potato!," it's more "why do you think that? What assumptions are you using?"

I get the bullshit-calling on Drum, but there also seems to be a lot of identity-politics crap going on as well.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 04, 2013 05:55 PM (bxiXv)

583
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 05:56 PM (69Mdf)

584 red, perhaps you should read up on what you claim is not a mystery.

>>>Among children, the cause is unknown for one-third to one-half of cases.

Mental redardation =/= Down Syndrome.

Posted by: ace at January 04, 2013 05:56 PM (LCRYB)

585 But I do consider this tendency to view everything first, second, and last through the prism of politics, and how many chits it delivers into your bag of political proofs (or takes away from that bag), to be just a low sort of results-driven thinking. If it helps my basic belief, it's true; if it undermines it in any fashion, it's not true.

I'm not viewing anything in this thread through politics. A lifetime of study in Psychology and personal observation -- with a GPA in the topic only a tad shy of 4.0. Volume after volume of study on criminals and psychotics. Study after study observing the 'sweet spot' of criminal behavior and the ages involved. Personal observation, like having a BIL kill two people (yup, not making that up) before the age of 30, then magically turning into a married, Bible-thumping angel at 31 ears of age.

It is what it is, and it isn't what you'd like it to be.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 04, 2013 05:57 PM (feFL6)

586 All kids are screened at health clinics. The symptoms of lead poisoning in kids would be evident. I am unaware of any identification of mass exposure to lead since they banned lead paint.

Posted by: red at January 04, 2013 05:59 PM (ymJbM)

587 Kellogg Idaho (Silver Valley) has been/was swimming in lead for a 100 years.

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 05:59 PM (lkjWK)

588 ace: "Statistical analyses (epidemiology is one big ball
of statistics, yes?) informs them as to which things to put under the
microscope."


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 05:59 PM (eHIJJ)

589 583
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 05:56 PM
.........................
Does Fluffernutter contain Lead? I hope not.

Posted by: 70's child -- exposed to Lead and Fluffernutter, but has committed no crime. at January 04, 2013 06:00 PM (0JB89)

590 Just read a book on Genetics....so I knew it was something wrong in the early formation of the chromosones. Could be even before conception.
I'm sure there are other causes as well, but the main type we typically are familiar with is down syndrome is too many genes on the 21st chromosone. So it is happens early in the development stages before the brain is even formed. I'm no expert.....here is a start if anyone is interested at Wikipedia.
...................
http://tinyurl.com/o7m53



------------

The leading cause of mental retardation in the US is Congenital CMV with brain involvement, which occurs when the mother catches CMV (a very common virus with flu-like, or no, symptoms) for the first time while pregnant. Other major birth defects, including some that cause retardation, are caused by folic acid deficiencies in the pregnant mom. More and more developmental delay can be traced back to pregnancy. It really is an interesting thing; it's not near as likely to be genetic as we once thought.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 06:00 PM (b+8h9)

591 Damn these commenters on a political blog, reading a link to a liberal political blog--responding in a political way and suspecting politics is at play.

The idiots! The audacity! How dare they!?

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 06:02 PM (r2PLg)

592
Fluffernutter is made from fluff and nuts.

Fluff from sock monkeys IIRC.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2013 06:02 PM (69Mdf)

593 587
Kellogg Idaho (Silver Valley) has been/was swimming in lead for a 100 years.

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 06:03 PM (HDgX3)

594
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 06:03 PM (lbiWb)

595 OK, so I checked and it looks like lead accumulates in the brain:

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 06:04 PM (5H6zj)

596 A lot of us are looking at it through the prism of medical fact that you repeatedly ignore. Mental retardation is not a mystery.

-----

What are you talking about? You don't think "retarded" automatically means "Down Syndrome" do you?

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 06:05 PM (b+8h9)

597 Define politics.

Politics is the art of persuasion.

Can science be manipulated--for political ends?

Thinking you can separate "politics" like a dirty word from debate is an operation in futility.

Posted by: tasker at January 04, 2013 06:05 PM (r2PLg)

598 It looks more like two similarly shaped graphs that have been scaled to lie near to each other.

Posted by: s☺mej☼e at January 04, 2013 06:05 PM (SSWdi)

599 To my enduring shame, I was a charter subscriber to Mother Jones. Bowed out when they excused/endorsed the Sandinistas' media suppression. One of my first click moments.

Posted by: Chicagorefugee at January 04, 2013 06:07 PM (MbXOQ)

600 Oh, and the researcher has dates wrong, too. And ignores other nations' experiences. Other than that, sure...

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 06:11 PM (+lsX1)

601 I ski there a lot. Shit, I'm gonna turn into a criminal now.


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 06:12 PM (lkjWK)

602 All kids are screened at health clinics. The symptoms of lead poisoning
in kids would be evident. I am unaware of any identification of mass
exposure to lead since they banned lead paint


Well if you're unaware, it doesn't exist. Case closed.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 04, 2013 06:15 PM (SY2Kh)

603 Oh, and the researcher has dates wrong, too. And ignores other nations' experiences.
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 06:17 PM (SY2Kh)

604 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?


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 06:20 PM (SY2Kh)

605 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.


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 06:21 PM (+lsX1)

606 He didn't go into detail, but they did look at other countries.

If only there was some world-wide event preceding the period that separated large numbers of males from large numbers of females, that could account for a large increase in population after that large world-wide event ended. Causing a large demographic shift into an age period when a large percentage of young males (under 30) engaged in mischief and mayhem.

Nope. I don't see it.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 04, 2013 06:23 PM (feFL6)

607 If you read various stories about the Gold Rush(s), in California, Colorado, and possibly elsewhere, you will come across stories of miners who used mercury to extract gold. This process involves heating the mercury-gold amalgam, generating mercury vapor.

It was accepted at the time (and certainly today), that enough exposure to mercury caused ... problems ... Men who had sufficient exposure became timid, sometimes unstable, sometimes violent. The results varied, but none were good.

Lead is known to screw up the human brain. The idea that lead, inhaled, could cause problems in the human brain, as ingested lead and inhaled mercury are known to do, seems quite reasonable.

Posted by: Arbalest at January 04, 2013 06:25 PM (/kkxJ)

608 Correlation is not evidence of causation.

Posted by: sanity at January 04, 2013 06:26 PM (RVjIg)

609 586 All kids are screened at health clinics. The symptoms of lead poisoning in kids would be evident. I am unaware of any identification of mass exposure to lead since they banned lead paint.


------

Lead exposure is not the same as lead poisoning. And, yes, there are populations that have had high exposure to lead since they banned lead paint. The Mexico-US border is one area with a lot of lead-exposed children, because so many go back and forth, buy things in Mexico, breathe in exhaust from cars running on gasoline bought in Mexico. Besides that, lead paint and the items it was covered in didn't just up and vanish when the government said so. Poor people couldn't just up and buy a new crib, and poorly-informed people didn't know they should.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 06:29 PM (b+8h9)

610 608

weren't you the guy blabbing about "far righties" the other day and you offer this pearl of wisdom that's been said 2141235235235 times in this thread

Posted by: JDP at January 04, 2013 06:31 PM (60GaT)

611 If the Republicans are going to change then they have to learn how to think liberal. If you can't figure out how they think how can you outsmart them at their own game?

Posted by: Caustic at January 04, 2013 06:32 PM (/b8+5)

612 Causing a large demographic shift into an age period when a large
percentage of young males (under 30) engaged in mischief and mayhem.


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 06:38 PM (+lsX1)

613 This was a repost when it was put up at Geothermal this morning. How does lead affect a blogger's brain?

Posted by: Gerry at January 04, 2013 06:44 PM (dVLqv)

614 I'm gonna suppose that the 300 horsepower engine is the root cause of crime, because until that time, leaded gasoline was pretty much unnecessary. I suppose I should apologize for my IQ, but due to my age, I do try to see if it is decreasing. Or that massive exposure to tetra-ethyl lead in my youth diminished that number.

Because I'd really love to go on a tri-state crime spree and get off without consequences. Because lead.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 04, 2013 06:49 PM (feFL6)

615 Mad as a hatter! Thanks mercury!

Posted by: freeTibet with purchase of equal or greater value Tibet at January 04, 2013 06:49 PM (quLHy)

616 Because I'd really love to go on a tri-state crime spree and get off without consequences. Because lead.

-----

That strawman of yours has an IQ of 130, too.

Could you please acknowledge that your exposure as a young adult/teen is not at all the same as exposure in utero, in infancy, and in early childhood? Even if it was, you're basically repeating "Well, my uncle Tito smoked 2 packs a day and lived to be 100 and my neighbor got cancer and never smoked a day in her life!". It's great that your exposure---again, at a very different stage of development than the article is talking about, unless you were pumping gas at 2---didn't predispose you to criminal behavior, but that doesn't mean that other people haven't been damaged by lead in a way that makes them more likely to commit crimes.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 04, 2013 07:20 PM (b+8h9)

617 Gristle Encased Head - I did, and the researcher blew it. Other nations' data collection was accepted "as is" w/o correlating for reporting status, etc., plus the research simply ignores other areas where tetraethyl lead use varied over time. That is reality, and if one wishes to ignore it, well...

Posted by: Jess1 at January 04, 2013 08:05 PM (lbiWb)

618
Not to beat Schrödinger's dead catany 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 08:33 PM (lbiWb)

619 And yes, it's Swabia. D*** autospell fat fingers...

Posted by: Jess1 at January 04, 2013 08:35 PM (lbiWb)

620 Everybody say this in unison, "correlation is not causality!" Next story.

Posted by: aDub at January 04, 2013 08:57 PM (haGfu)

621 Hasidic Jews are virtually all lead breathing city dwellers who also have a constant baby boom. Yet I don't think they produced marauding criminals that mugged , murdered and raped in numbers far above their percent of the population

Posted by: Avi at January 05, 2013 08:32 PM (7f0Xt)

622 Yes, indeed. It also fueled the increase in unmarried pregnancies, and abortion. Also gun ownership. Let's not forget global warming either.

Posted by: jbarntt at January 05, 2013 09:07 PM (UNFot)






Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.098 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0246 seconds, 631 records returned.
Page size 343 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat