3 ms·

I didn't get that sense at all. The article acknowledges multiple times that this is not a new breakthrough. The point is that the danger of lead is so well kno

I didn't get that sense at all. The article acknowledges multiple times that this is not a new breakthrough. The point is that the danger of lead is so well known that it's strange criminologists don't make a bigger deal of the lead/crime correlation. More recent studies show the lead is even more dangerous than previously thought.

stmartin 14y ago
So if they make a bigger deal, it almost becomes like causation rather than corelation, eh?
anigbrowl 14y ago
But criminologists do make a big deal of it. Here's a study from 5 years ago, which received wide public attention at the time, pointing out the correlation: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050101 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal... And the MJ article spends half the time talking about how economically worthwhile lead abatement measures would be, without bothering to report that lead abatement is already well subsidized and promoted, because policymakers at both the state and federal level are aware of the high long-term costs of childhood lead poisoning; google 'lead abatement site:gov' for an abundance of resources. Those bureaucrats and politicians aren't advising people to clean up lead-based paint and offering grants just to pass the time, they're doing it because they already know about the high social costs of lead contamination. That's also why unleaded gasoline is now the norm.
- danielharan 14y ago
  Only the first author is a criminologist, and it's in a medical journal with images of brain scans. In fact, it sounds like the study mentioned in the original MJ post. A single reference by a criminologist in a journal of another field does NOT prove that criminologists take this seriously. Given the author claims to have contacted several experts in that field with none giving the lead theory any credence, you'd need a bit more evidence to show they do.

stmartin 14y ago

So if they make a bigger deal, it almost becomes like causation rather than corelation, eh?

anigbrowl 14y ago

But criminologists do make a big deal of it. Here's a study from 5 years ago, which received wide public attention at the time, pointing out the correlation: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050101 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal... And the MJ article spends half the time talking about how economically worthwhile lead abatement measures would be, without bothering to report that lead abatement is already well subsidized and promoted, because policymakers at both the state and federal level are aware of the high long-term costs of childhood lead poisoning; google 'lead abatement site:gov' for an abundance of resources. Those bureaucrats and politicians aren't advising people to clean up lead-based paint and offering grants just to pass the time, they're doing it because they already know about the high social costs of lead contamination. That's also why unleaded gasoline is now the norm.

danielharan 14y ago
Only the first author is a criminologist, and it's in a medical journal with images of brain scans. In fact, it sounds like the study mentioned in the original MJ post. A single reference by a criminologist in a journal of another field does NOT prove that criminologists take this seriously. Given the author claims to have contacted several experts in that field with none giving the lead theory any credence, you'd need a bit more evidence to show they do.