> If entire populations were 'poisoned' in the 70s and continued to contribute to society without noticing a severe decline in productivity, the meaning of the

> If entire populations were 'poisoned' in the 70s and continued to contribute to society without noticing a severe decline in productivity, the meaning of the word loses its meaning. There may have been a severe decline in productivity (and peacefulness, well-being, etc). It's easy to see acute direct effects of poisoning; it's really hard to know for sure if these levels of lead exposure caused violent crime, but people have made a plausible argument that they did. See wikipedia: > A 2007 report published by The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, authored by Jessica Wolpaw Reyes of Amherst College, found that between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime". — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis I don't care what word folks use, but I think there's enough evidence of negative consequences that we should ensure that the lead exposure of the '70s is never repeated—in Flint, in the other cities the article mentioned, or anywhere else.