17 ms·

Did removing lead from petrol spark a decline in crime?

• spcoll 13y ago
  Many variables share this exact graph shape over the 1960-2000 period, without having anything to do with crime. It's not a particularly characteristic shape. This seems to be a textbook example of "correlation does not imply causation". If there was causation (due to the neurological effects of long-term lead exposure during childhood years), then you would observe delayed correlation (at a 20 year scale), not simultaneous correlation.
  • Pfhreak 13y ago
    Not that I disagree with you, but the graph in the article is adjusted 23 years between the two lines.
    • spcoll 13y ago
      Indeed, that had escaped me. It makes the case stronger then.
      • stormbrew 13y ago
        The other part that makes it stronger than simple line-fitting is the idea that it tracks similarily, but from different starting points, in jurisdictions where the use of lead started declining at different points. Especially when the jurisdictions pursued similar crime policy at around the same time (ie. the UK and the US).
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • lclarkmichalek 13y ago
    Correlation does not imply causation, however correlation can be used to support a theory of causation. The article does address this point: "There is a substantial causal relationship," she says. "I can see it in the state-to-state variations. States that experienced particularly early or particularly sharp declines in lead experienced particularly early or particularly sharp declines in violent crime 20 years later." Without reading the paper, I will not venture any opinion on the hypothesis/research/etc itself. I do however thing it may take more than 5 words to completely dismiss the theory.
    • XorNot 13y ago
      The causative mechanism is the body of research done on the brains of criminals. We usually find reduced function or actual damage in the frontal cortex, and other regions associated with empathy and emotional processing. The other group of people we find this in is those suffering from childhood lead exposure, and we know that the regions of the brain most affected are those which occur from lead exposure. While not going so far as to imply everyone with this pattern becomes a criminal, it certainly increases the statistical likelihood that they are, and studies on people with extreme issues - i.e. psychopaths - tend to show that's its a pattern of life experiences which determine whether you learn to function in society, or go another path. Notable is the neuroscientist who was studying psychopaths and discovered he has the same sort of brain structure as one - but, is a scientist, married and has children. Since we can't really control an individuals life experiences through policy, but they roughly sort out statistically based on socioeconomic status, it seems pretty clear that exposure to brain development inhibiting neurotoxins is going to give you a higher then expected fraction of criminally-inclined young adults.
• ballard 13y ago
  Sort of related, neat history of another toxic gasoline additive: tetra-ethyl lead http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth/ http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth/
  • thrownaway2424 13y ago
    I see you didn't click through and read the article.
    • coolsunglasses 13y ago
      Speaking of toxic, do you think you could be less so? I realize you're a throwaway but you wouldn't need one if you weren't being abusive and rude.
      • ballard 13y ago
        Gracias. There seem to be ever more folks ready to overreact with pitchforks and cudgels calling for the draw and quarter anyone over misinterpreting the color of a bikeshed. It's too bad folks choose to disagree, point out something as an excuse to be uncivil and with the cowardice of anonymity.
  • ams6110 13y ago
    This is the same additive discussed in the OP
  • midas007 13y ago
    This is a better article than the OP. Thanks.
• lutusp 13y ago
  Some say it was a decline in environmental lead, as the linked article does. Some say it was the advent of mandatory sentencing and three-strikes laws. Some say it was the easy availability of birth control and abortion, meaning fewer unwanted children were born. But, social psychologists to the contrary, we will never know, because this kind of study can never ascend to the level of science. All we can be sure of is a rise in ... not crime, but contentless articles whose titles end in a question mark.
  • lclarkmichalek 13y ago
    Antipositivism is a thing, like it or not. I've aways loved the quote from Heisenberg: > The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into that > which we can say clearly and the rest, which we had better pass over in > silence. But can any one conceive of a more pointless philosophy, seeing > that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing? If we > omitted all that is unclear we would probably be left with completely > uninteresting and trivial tautologies. Rejecting the entirety of a science because it deals in confidence values rather than "facts" is foolish; it might be better to judge works based on their quality, rather than some ranking that deems X to be a science and Y to be something other. I particularly love that you used the word "ascend"; I shan't be the first to compare positivism to scientism
    • beagle3 13y ago
      "science", to some, implies a discipline subject to the scientific method - none of this discussion is. Replace "science" with "discipline" in your post and it will make sense.
      • lclarkmichalek 13y ago
        Nope. Still not seeing how "this kind of study can never ascend to the level of discipline (née science)" is something that can be stated without any supporting argument.
        • 13y ago
• stretchwithme 13y ago
  Might be able to confirm this by testing kids for lead poisoning in countries where leaded gas is still legal. There are children that lived in the country and later move to the city. How early their exposure began would be the variable being tested. You could treat all cases of lead poisoning you find and still be able to measure the impact of leaded gas on development. Of course, I think the jury has been in on lead gas and paint for decades. But I guess for a poor country, an economic case must be made.
  • kevingadd 13y ago
    Well, it's talking about chronic lead poisoning, not acute lead poisoning. Different things. It's interesting to consider that chronic lead poisoning could have escaped notice for a long time because the symptoms seemed like random variance to you or me when they were actually a trend.
• lostlogin 13y ago
  This has come up before with the Mother Jones article http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li... This article is better in my opinion. Good discussion on HN then too. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368
  • curtis 13y ago
    For those searching for a TL;DR of the article, here is a much shorter blog post by the same author talking about the different kinds of evidence supporting the thesis: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/lead-and-crime-assessing-evidence http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/lead-and-crime... One quote: > There are now multiple rigorous studies using different methodologies that demonstrate this correlation at the city level, the state level, the national level, and in different countries at different times.
  • downandout 13y ago
    Mother Jones....now there's a scientifically credible, impartial source.
  • dredmorbius 13y ago
    Lead paint really can't be mentioned without bringing up the name, work, and abuse heaped upon Herbert Needleman who drew many of the associations between the use of lead in paint and brain damage to children, especially inner-city and underprivileged youth: http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/health/why-is-lead-still-poisoning-our-children/ http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/health/why-is-lead-sti... For his efforts, Needleman endured years of attacks denigrating the quality of his research and his integrity as a scientist. In 1982 the industry-funded International Lead Zinc Research Organization (ILZRO) went to the Environmental Protection Agency to accuse Needleman of scientific misconduct. The EPA convened a committee of experts, which concluded that Needleman’s study had not proved a connection between lead exposure and a child’s mental development. Needleman countered that the committee report contained serious mistakes. The EPA agreed, reversed the committee’s findings, and lauded Needleman’s “pioneering study,” saying it confirmed a “significant association” between lead exposure and childhood intelligence. The ILZRO hired the public-relations firm Hill & Knowlton to publicize the original committee’s criticisms of Needleman. Two scientists led the next attack on Needleman. One was Sandra Scarr, a developmental psychologist at the University of Virginia who had been a member of the EPA committee that disputed Needleman’s study. The second was Claire Ernhart, a developmental psychologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, who called Needleman’s study “slipshod.” Beginning in 1983, Ernhart, who had conducted lead research, received about $50,000 a year from ILZRO for research support but denies being beholden to the lead industry or speaking on its behalf. Scarr claims not to have received money from ILZRO other than expert witness fees and likewise denied industry influence.... In all, the attacks on Needleman’s work and integrity and his defense against them dragged on for 15 years. Intentional disinformation is a major theme of this (59 minute) lecture by Philip Mirowski, an economic historian (he focuses largely on global warming but the principles and rationale apply broadly to other cases of economically incentivized disinformation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I Among other things, it references the work of Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming, and Robert N. Proctor's Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. I discuss these at more length here: http://www.reddit.com/r/deep_ecology/comments/1yum2c/life_and_debt_living_through_the_financialisation/ http://www.reddit.com/r/deep_ecology/comments/1yum2c/life_an...
• maxerickson 13y ago
  Sesame Street debuted in 1969. Whenever I see stories like this, I wonder what sort of impact it has had.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • taf2 13y ago
    Or to say the introduction of violent video games in the mid to late 90s and the rise in gun violence in schools in the last few years? Young children growing up with the increase exposure to violence could be related?
    • mikeash 13y ago
      Pac-Man was introduced in 1980. Many of the children who grew up with it have gone on to spend a lot of time eating pills in the dark while listening to electronic music. The link is clear.
      • gjm11 13y ago
        I think you should give credit where it's due for that joke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Brigstocke#Pac-Man_joke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Brigstocke#Pac-Man_joke.
        • mikeash 13y ago
          Huh, I had no idea it had any origin besides "some anonymous coward on the internet". Appreciate the link.
    • CamperBob2 13y ago
      Or to say the introduction of violent video games in the mid to late 90s and the rise in gun violence in schools in the last few years? Oh, you must mean this ( http://www.theesa.com/policy/scotus_chart.gif http://www.theesa.com/policy/scotus_chart.gif ) rise in violence.
• downandout 13y ago
  Correlation does not imply causation. While lead exposure may have something to do with it, an issue like the crime rate is driven by a number of complex factors. Perfect example of why this type of analysis is ridiculous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_indicator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_indicator
  • jackvalentine 13y ago
    This is not a meaningful contribution to the conversation. If you'd read the comments and replies made before you posted perhaps you'd have been able to contribute something other than the trite "correlation does not imply causation" which may just be the most obnoxious phrase on the internet today.
    • downandout 13y ago
      I strongly disagree with the article for one reason: Correlation does not imply causation. That is what I said. I realize that my comment flies in the face of the opinion of radical environmentalists. Does that make my opinion invalid?
      • jackvalentine 13y ago
        I think this post explains it without me repeating someone's words. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7619054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7619054 Your "contribution" of repeating the phrase doesn't educate anybody, doesn't address the actual content of the article. It doesn't make your opinion invalid but it also doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the understanding of the article. It was also said several times before you deigned to enter the conversation and "educate" us about correlation.
        • downandout 13y ago
          It doesn't address the content of the article? Apparently you did not read the article. It specifically is trying to say that the correlation between crime rate and removal of lead from gasoline is attributable to it (e.g. caused by it). I strongly disagree with it. That's what I said.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• thrownaway2424 13y ago
  The incredible thing is that they still allow private aviators to use leaded gas, primarily because it would cost the owners of obsolete aircraft a few thousands dollars to either refit their engines, or get supplemental type certificates for unleaded gas. These joyriding dipshits fly all over the place spraying lead over everybody.
  • rpmcb 13y ago
    As a "joyriding dipshit," I can assure you we're not spraying you with lead. General Aviation is moving away from leaded fuel in general. In fact, Shell recently announced an unleaded alternative to AvGas that can be used in a normal engine without issue. No new equipment required. http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/December/3/shell-unleaded.aspx http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/December/3/...
    • thrownaway2424 13y ago
      That's wonderful, but get back to me when the FAA (or the EPA) actually outlaws 100LL. Offering unleaded gas at airfields, even if that happens, won't solve the problem of people using leaded gas. Hell, there isn't even an FBO anywhere around where I live that offers an autogas pump. It's 100LL or JetA or nothing.
      • rpmcb 13y ago
        They are planning the transition right now. 2018 is the goal for phase-out. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/faa-wants-all-aircraft-flying-unleaded-fuel-2018 http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/faa-wants-all-air...
  • chmars 13y ago
    You certainly seem to hate general aviation! AV gas is being replaced step by step but since leaded gas has its advantages, the replacement process takes time – and there is no really convincing alternative. Anyway, the amount of lead is probably no significant factor in air pollution, there is simply not enough general aviator flying for that.
• PavlovsCat 13y ago
  That graph seems silly, why use two different time scales?
  • 6d0debc071 13y ago
    They're showing it roughly twenty years later. The argument being, in effect, that lead exposure when young lead to later-life criminal behaviour.
    • PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Oops, now I feel silly :) Thanks.
  • andrew93101 13y ago
    I think the idea is that lead exposure in childhood leads to crime later in life
• yukichan 13y ago
  I've read about a couple of different explanations for changes in crime rates. I think freakanomics has discussed greater prevalence of abortions[1], and one thing I've heard in academic circles is that crime reporting has gotten better. You could actually make predictions with this article's question. There may have been areas where lead was used in petrol for longer than others, one could compare across regions and see if the time at which petrol was changed also adheres to drop in crime to see if there is still a correlation. http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-sh...
  • wobbleblob 13y ago
    Levitt and Dubner wrote down a number of interesting theories about lots of things, but I think they overthought this one. The crime rate rose and dropped pretty neatly along with the proportion of young men in society. The median age is much higher now than it was 30 years ago. Crime, especially violent crime, is a young man's game. Perhaps they are right and roe vs wade was one of the factors in raising the median age, but it seems that people today want smaller families, and have more control over this than a generation ago. You can't assume that if a woman has an abortion, a miscarriage and two kids over her lifetime, she would have had four children if it hadn't been for the abortion and the miscarriage.
    • XorNot 13y ago
      While I've been generally convined Freakonomics is to be considered suspect on this, the argument you present in the last paragraph doesn't counter it: the Freakonomics point was that absent abortion, people were forced into having children earlier when they were not ready to support them fiscally or emotively due to their situation, whereas with control of their fertility they can choose when they are best prepared and most desired them.
      • wobbleblob 13y ago
        My point was that a society dominated by young men is going to have more crime than a society with a median near middle age - that smaller families made us calmer. They didn't convince me that younger parents are worse than older ones.
• vacri 13y ago
  This always amuses me. Crime in the US was rising... until the mid-90s when the twin powers of the ridiculously high incarceration rate j-curved and the internet bringing all sorts of indoor distractions happened. I mean, who would have thought that teenage delinquency would be reduced by distributing computer games, giving them something to do rather than wander the streets being bored? And if lead really is responsible for 90% of the crime, as stated in the article by the chief propagandist, then before leaded fuel was around, crime should have been negligible - and it clearly wasn't. Edit: perhaps the lead-in-your-fuel people should debate against the concealed-carry people, since both of them claim absolute ownership of the decline in US crime from the mid-90s onwards.
  • vacri 13y ago
    Actually, thinking about it further, It's funny that in none of these articles is the point put forward that the kind of people who would want to better educated themselves about and eliminate poisons for the better welfare of their family might also be the kind of people who would try to raise and socialise their kids in a better manner. Lead was removed from petrol at a time of massive upheaval in the way the public looked at raising their kids. This argument would suggest that both reduced lead in petrol and 20-year-later-lowered-crime are both sourced from improved parenting and social actions.
    • jtheory 13y ago
      > Lead was removed from petrol at a time of massive upheaval in the way the public looked at raising their kids. Okay; now did that public view also change per-state, and per-country, tracking the date ranges that lead was removed? The crime rates track when lead was added/removed regionally, not just generally.
      • vacri 13y ago
        The papers linked in the article don't actually say that, and I'd like to see the papers that do - have you a link to them? And is it so hard to think that the more progressive regions might do several things earlier than the less progressive regions? I'm not saying this is the actual mechanism at play, just that it's a plausible mechanism that is causal for both trends - something that's always overlooked in thees articles. Anyway, I spent an hour looking at crime graphs for Australia this afternoon, and I can't see a common pattern at all. Australia banned leaded fuel in 1986 and it was completely phased out by 2000. But the crime graphs are all over the place. Homicide is stable-but-downward. Assualts are rising. Robbery has been both up and down. If lead is the 'silver bullet' against violent crime 20 years later, why the increase in assaults? I just don't see the preliminary patterns required for this "causation" to work. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics.html http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics.html
• TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
  • downandout 13y ago
    Careful, they're out in droves downvoting anyone that disagrees with the premise of this story.
    • vacri 13y ago
      We don't need Betteridge's Law quoted every single time there's a question mark in the article title.
      • downandout 13y ago
        We also don't need environmentalist drivel that has no hope of being scientifically proven on the front page of HN, along with a vocal minority waiting to pounce on anyone that questions the validity of such nonsense. Yet, somehow it winds up there.
        • PhasmaFelis 13y ago
          I'm sure you have at least as much research and data backing your hypothesis as this article does. Please do link it so we can take a look for ourselves. I'm sure you don't just have an unreasoning, politically-motivated, knee-jerk hatred of anything that strikes you as "environmentalist." That would be silly, after all.
          • downandout 13y ago
            That's just it: this article presents no data showing a definitive link between the two. Show me some evidence of that, and I'll be happy to agree with it. I agree with facts; not politically motivated opinions. It shows that one thing happened, and another thing happened. The tie (or, the much hated term "correlation") between the two is a stretch at best.
• dhughes 13y ago
  Yup, Cosmos was on tonight, subject: lead. It's nice to see it got some brains fired-up. PBS also had a great series the Poisoner's Handbook about different poisonous elements and the one about lead was more in-depth about leaded gasoline. Charles Norris was an amazing person! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/poisoners-introduction/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduc...
• parfe 13y ago
  NPR just ran the story "Study: Half Of Jailed NYC Youths Have Brain Injury" The study found nearly 50 percent of both boys and girls reported traumatic brain injuries that resulted in a loss of consciousness, amnesia or both. And they said 55 percent of those injuries were caused by assaults. An estimated 60 percent of adult prisoners have a brain injury, according to a study of prisoners in South Carolina. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=304572805 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3045728... The US justice system has become extreme in the pursuit of punishment vs treatment and rehabilitation.
  • mikeash 13y ago
    "Become"? When was it not?
    • troels 13y ago
      Prisons were initially invented as correction facilities, rather than instruments of punishment. Before this, crime was mostly dealt with by physical punishment.
      • jessaustin 13y ago
        This is completely wrong. You might benefit from reading Foucault's Discipline and Punish.
  • AlexMuir 13y ago
    That is vs 30-40% of the general population. There's nothing unexpected here. Youths mostly go to jail for violence. The more fights you get into, the more likely you are to be injured. I'd imagine that there's a far larger percentage of number of jailed youths with knife scars than those in school. That doesn't mean knife scars cause people to end up in prison.
    • edoloughlin 13y ago
      There's nothing unexpected here. Youths mostly go to jail for violence. The more fights you get into, the more likely you are to be injured. I'd imagine that there's a far larger percentage of number of jailed youths with knife scars than those in school. That doesn't mean knife scars cause people to end up in prison. I'm no neurologist, but i suspect that a brain injury might change your personality more than a scar from a knife fight, possibly making you more likely to engage in criminal behaviour.
• A_COMPUTER 13y ago
  Are there countries, or locations in the USA that could be used as a control for this hypothesis? Places that didn't get rid of lead.
  • enf 13y ago
    The control is Australia, which got rid of it about a decade later than the US.
    • api 13y ago
      Are there places that still use it?
      • enf 13y ago
        Wikipedia says it is still available in "Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, North Korea, and possibly Afghanistan."
        • lingben 13y ago
          also Iran
    • klipt 13y ago
      South Africa only phased it out completely in 2006: http://www.southafrica.info/services/consumer/clean_fuel081205.htm http://www.southafrica.info/services/consumer/clean_fuel0812...
  • stormbrew 13y ago
    I think there are still places that are within the 20 year window of the abolishment of lead, but they'd be disappearing pretty fast. Since we can probably assume that there is no place in the world that will or would indefinitely allow the use of lead in gasoline (and if they would, obtaining meaningful crime reporting numbers out of them might be tricky), comparing the time lag across jurisdictions is the best control we'll probably get.
  • 13y ago
• ignostic 13y ago
  It's been suggested that the removal of lead from fuels, paints, etc. may explain the fact that our IQs have risen since about the same time, and since leveled off somewhat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect Say what you will about environment, but the lead explanation seems to match historical data in all the ways we'd expect it to. Find something that lead does, and we find a trend showing its decline since we started eliminating lead.
  • api 13y ago
    I wonder how this interacts with IQ differences by ethnicity, given that historically some ethnic groups tended to live in inner cities where lead exposure would have been significantly greater.
    • thaumasiotes 13y ago
      This has been studied. Gains from the Flynn effect don't show a relationship to race effects in IQ.
  • ern 13y ago
    Reading the Wikipedia article seems to indicate that most of the rises in IQ due to the Flynn effect happened during the period when fuel lead levels were high. Would they have risen faster without lead?
  • gretful 13y ago
    Speaking of historical data: leaded plumbing is linked to the decline of the Roman Empire.
    • shabble 13y ago
      Are there reliable sources on that? Also, using Lead Acetate[1] as an artificial sweetener probably didn't help matters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%28II%29_acetate#Sweetener https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%28II%29_acetate#Sweetener
• spingsprong 13y ago
  I what some people here seemed to be missing, is this correlation isn't just lead was removed from the environment and 23 years later crime went down. It's that various areas has differing degrees of lead pollution and started reducing it at different times. The places that reduced lead pollution first, saw the drop in crime first, the places that reduced it later saw the drop later. The eras that initially had high levels of lead had a larger drop in crime than areas that always had a low level. And it's not just the USA either. The pattern holds pretty accurately for various nations around the world, like in Europe. Those who banned leaded fuel first, saw the drop in crime first, those who banned later, saw the drop later. And these nations had massively differing crime policies. Some nations increased prison sentences to try and deter crime, and crime went down. Some nations put a huge effort into reforming criminals, and crime went down. And some nations cut prison sentence, and crime went down.
  • shawkinaw 13y ago
    Not to mention the fact that it makes a lot of sense. Statistics is not the only evidence supporting this theory.
    • mendicantB 13y ago
      Statistics is the means of testing whether or not something is evidence. I understand what you meant, it's an intuitive conclusion, one that doesn't seem like magic. But, something making sense usually does not correlate with or serve as evidence of it being true.
      • DennisP 13y ago
        If you take a bayesian approach it affects your prior.
      • Symmetry 13y ago
        something making sense usually does not correlate with or serve as evidence of it being true. It's true that statistics is required to be sure if something is true, but it's a priori far more likely that a rise in violent crime is caused by a substance known to damage people's brains than by, say, the gravitational influence of Pluto. And we rightly demand careful confirmation when someone finds a particle traveling at a velocity greater than c than when it is found to be traveling at a velocity less than c. EDIT: And more to the point, I hope you don't find the hypothesis that violence in the 70s caused leaded gasoline in the 50s as that leaded gasoline in the 50s caused violence in the 70s, and that you would agree that one of those two hypothesis needs more evidence before we accept it. Granted, it could easily be some more complicated net of causality, but just between those two.
• dredmorbius 13y ago
  Midgley is perhaps among the most damaging engineers the world has known: he is responsible for both tetraethyl lead additives to gasoline (the subject of this article) and chloroflorcarbons, responsible for damaging the Earth's ozone layer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr. This story is also a very strong argument toward both regulation of markets due to externalities (lead in gasoline and paint were defended vigorously by their respective industries for decades), and of the argument that there are some products and services which, despite being profitable to those dealing in them directly, impose a net negative cost to society as a whole. Such activities are often difficult to recognize strictly because of the nature of externalities: they're diffuse, affecting many individuals, often incrementally in a small way, often indirectly and, in the case of environmental lead, with impacts lagging cause by decades. This is also a very powerful case of negative impacts accruing largely due to socioeconomic circumstances not ascribable to the conscious and voluntary decisions of those directly affected: neither the infants and children exposed to lead, nor the victims of the criminal acts they transacted on a probabilistically greater scale, had entered into any sort of voluntary or legally recognized agreement with the manufacturers of leaded gas and paint. Punches a bit of a hole in that whole libertarian argument which promptly ... sinks like a lead balloon.
• tim333 13y ago
  Mildly off topic but Bill Bryson is interesting on how we ended up getting lead in petrol in the first place http://enconv.org/docs/index-26824.html?page=11 http://enconv.org/docs/index-26824.html?page=11 Except: "So in 1923 three of America’s largest corporations, General Motors, Du Pont, and Standard Oil of New Jersey, formed a joint enterprise called the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation (later shortened to simply Ethyl Corporation) with a view to making as much tetraethyl lead as the world was willing to buy, and that proved to be a very great deal. They called their additive “ethyl” because it sounded friendlier and less toxic than “lead” and introduced it for public consumption (in more ways than most people realized) on February 1, 1923. Almost at once production workers began to exhibit the staggered gait and confused faculties that mark the recently poisoned. Also almost at once, the Ethyl Corporation embarked on a policy of calm but unyielding denial that would serve it well for decades. As Sharon Bertsch McGrayne notes in her absorbing history of industrial chemistry, Prometheans in the Lab , when employees at one plant developed irreversible delusions, a spokesman blandly informed reporters: “These men probably went insane because they worked too hard.” Altogether at least fifteen workers died in the early days of production of leaded gasoline, and untold numbers of others became ill, often violently so; the exact numbers are unknown because the company nearly always managed to hush up news of embarrassing leakages, spills, and poisonings. At times, however, suppressing the news became impossible, most notably in 1924 when in a matter of days five production workers died and thirty-five more were turned into permanent staggering wrecks at a single ill-ventilated facility. ..."
• drakaal 13y ago
  I ate lead paint chips I turned out fine... None of those felony charges stuck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckeye_CableSystem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckeye_CableSystem I don't doubt that the reduction of lead in our environment has reduced the amount of mental illness. But I also think changes to truancy laws in the US in the 70s helped, advancements in psychotherapies, and drugs for the treatment of mental illness helped. Identification of treatments for ADD and ADHD helped. Changes in the economy helped, we had more women in the workforce which meant we had more ability for families to survive father's unemployment. Wider adoption of TV meant people became more aware of crime, and criminals were easier to catch. So yes, lead removal was probably a contributor, but I think it was bigger than that.
• vixin 13y ago
  Maybe there is an interesting story to be written concerning another heavy metal - mercury and its use in dental amalgam. Aside from whether it's prudent - irrespective of current evidence - to permanently store a compound containing 50% of a neurotoxin an inch or two from your brain, the release of almost 3,000 kilograms (6,613 lbs.) of mercury (data for 2005 alone) into the atmosphere from crematoria is cause for worry. Wikipedia notes that 'Good empirical data on the magnitude of mercury emissions from crematoria, however, are lacking'. No one is interested I guess.
• dschiptsov 13y ago
  Correlation is not causation. Of course, there is a correlation between pollution and "depression" (as in "depressive regions") or "desperation", but it is not a direct cause of seemed decline in crime. My bet is that the decline (or at least shift to less dramatic "technological/financial" crimes) is a cultural phenomena, influenced heavily by cheap and easy credit and media (especially so-called "social media"). It is just not cool or fashionable to be a dumb looter or a "primitive" gangster anymore. Nowadays one has to be "a clever guy" - a cheater instead of a criminal, an internet tycoon, overcharging credit cards of idiots who had ordered a colon cleanser form a stupid website, instead of simple armed robber of a drugstore on the corner. This works even for Russia, which, putting aside some African extremes, is the most criminalized society in the world. Even for them it is more fashionable to run a porn studio to sell pictures in the net than robbing trucks or brutally killing each other for a used BMW car. Nowadays one has to be "clever" to steal from the government, to gamble the corrupted [banking] system , cheat on idiots in internet, and even with their own credits and mortgages. The shift from stupid brutality to technological/financial/social "cleverness" (as they think of it) is what others call "decline in crime".)
• NAFV_P 13y ago
  An enlightening article, it reminded me of an article from the Guardian on ammonia synthesis and its environmental and social impact: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/03/fritz-haber-fertiliser-ammonia-centenary http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/03/fritz-haber-f...
• 1stop 13y ago
  Removing lead also lead to greater usage of facebook! Look at the stats! Lead Usage: |\ | \ | \ ----- Facebook usage: | / | / |/ ----- EDIT: While my post is satirical, and slightly obnoxious, it presents about as much evidence and citation as the article. The graph he presents (where did that come from?) doesn't even show proper correlation, it just kinda-sort-of fits.
  • matthewmacleod 13y ago
    First off, this is a news article - not a peer-reviewed study. You can't reasonably expect complete detail to be included - have a look at the linked papers. Second, there's substantially more detail in here than you have stated. For example, the correlation between the decrease in violent crime and the use of lead is reproduced in areas with differing crime policy, and shows a similar kind of decline in areas which stopped using lead earlier or later than others. Third, "it just kinda-sort-of fits" is all you will ever get in anything outside of pure mathematics. The real world is pretty noisy, and exact correlation is never going to happen.
• aestra 13y ago
  This is relevant. Always use cold water from your pipes to cook with and drink especially if you live in an older home. Also let the water run for a minute to flush out the pipes if it hasn't been used in a while. The EPA states: >Flush your pipes before drinking, and only use cold water for consumption. The more time water has been sitting in your home's pipes, the more lead it may contain. Anytime the water in a particular faucet has not been used for six hours or longer, "flush" your cold-water pipes by running the water until it becomes as cold as it will get. This could take as little as five to thirty seconds if there has been recent heavy water use such as showering or toilet flushing. Otherwise, it could take two minutes or longer. Your water utility will inform you if longer flushing times are needed to respond to local conditions. >Use only water from the cold-water tap for drinking, cooking, and especially for making baby formula. Hot water is likely to contain higher levels of lead. The two actions recommended above are very important to the health of your family. They will probably be effective in reducing lead levels because most of the lead in household water usually comes from the plumbing in your house, not from the local water supply. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8615/is-there-any-reason-to-use-cold-water-over-hot-water-for-boiling http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8615/is-there-an... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/health/29real.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/health/29real.html?_r=0
  • ds9 13y ago
    It's significant that there is this advice, and it supports the point of the article, but this is really insufficient. If you can't be sure of the water quality at the tap (as parent notes, different from the quality at the plant where the utility measures contaminant levels), then it's best to use a filter that removes metals (as well as biological contaminants). Also people should be aware: the government somehow allows pipes and fittings to be sold as "lead free" when in reality they contain up to a few percent of lead.
    • BAKidd 13y ago
      Be careful with filters-the main issue with lead is that it leaches from pipes and/or solder. Most of the cases I am aware of in modern (post 1970s) US homes were related to whole house reverse osmosis systems, because the ion-free water had so much more capacity for free metal ions. If you have hard water, it is almost impossible to persuade lead out of the pipe into solution. If you do want to use a filter, make sure you have an at the tap point filter as well.
• jmnicolas 13y ago
  I'm a target shooter, I wonder how the lead contained in the bullets and that is burned at firing time is affecting me :s
  • DanBC 13y ago
    This was a concern for the armed forces who have conducted studies on lead-alternatives for ammunition. (Aplogies if I get my bullet terminology wrong - I have little idea about this stuff. Here I'm talking about the lead slug projectile part of the round of ammunition). http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116438 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116438 I think that alternatives cause other problems by stripping the gun barrel and etc. On a gentle tangent I sometimes wonder how many rounds of ammunition were fired during Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And how much brass and lead there is for local populations to recover and sell. And whether that's worth the risk of handling unfored ammunition or finding cluster bomblets or similar.
    • logfromblammo 13y ago
      The brass would be more easily recovered. The lead and depleted uranium is not quite so simply recycled. Recall that hollow-point ammunition is banned for use by national armies. A lot of their munitions are designed to tumble in soft tissue or to shatter on impact. Some rounds are intended to send a rivulet of liquified metal through armor. Under such conditions, I am sure that a lot of the fired rounds ended up as dust, to either be inhaled immediately or to become a soil contaminant later. Turning every battle site into a Superfund-style cleanup is unlikely according to the local economics.
  • Zigurd 13y ago
    If I shot a lot, I would be concerned: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19395342 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19395342 I use lead-free pellets in a pellet rifle, which we keep on hand to shoot at animals that want to eat our chickens. It seems like a lot more pellets are lead-free now than just a few years ago. I don't like the idea of lead pellets laying around on my property. Most lead-free pellets also claim to be "high velocity' so it seems unlikely they are wearing the rifle barrel more than lead pellets.
• frik 13y ago
  The European Union (EU) banned lead from petrol in 2000. [1] Airplanes are still allowed to used leaded petrol!! [1] And the immigration movement to Europe increased the crime. [2] [1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorenbenzin#Verbleites_Benzin http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorenbenzin#Verbleites_Benzin [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
  I wonder if the result could be less about the lead itself having a direct effect on behaviour, and the action of the removal of lead being identified as "something obvious and beneficial which would be good to do" as being coincident with a greater enlightenment amongst those making the rules? I.e. to what extent "we should remove lead from petrol as that is obviously bad" is actually a handy indicator of more considered minds running the shop, those minds also being more predisposed to the kind of other "obviously good" decisions which could also have brought about an eventual reduction in crime.
• mrfusion 13y ago
  Does anyone think there could also be a link between lead in fuel and Alzheimer's? If there was, at what point would we start seeing Alzheimer's cause decline?
• kayoone 13y ago
  Previous HN discussion a year ago with 200 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368
• ap22213 13y ago
  I grew up in the 90s and can affirm that violence was substantially higher than now. It was common to get into 'street fights' just for something to do. But, I'm also curious whether there were higher death rates for the potentially violent, which could have also rapidly reduced crime rates. Of my friends in the 80s / 90s, I've had around 20 of them die over the course of 20 years. Of those who've died, I can say the great majority were in the 'violence prone' category. They generally seemed to have lower ability to gauge risks and sought out risky behavior, frequently.
  • ap22213 13y ago
    Why all the down votes? HN is becoming a hostile wasteland.
• pmorici 13y ago
  Is there anything new in this article? There was another piece that I think I remember reading on HN about a year ago on this same topic. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...
• puppetmaster3 13y ago
  A bit like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
• rwhitman 13y ago
  I've never seen a study correlating the rise and ubiquity of video games with the drop in crime. Before video games, bored young males ran around the neighborhood making mayhem. Today they sit in front of an xbox. I personally think the people who would be out committing violent crimes are still in society they just have a way doing it virtually.
  • akgerber 13y ago
    I can't find a link at the moment, but I've seen articles where parents in bad neighborhoods talk about buying their sons video game consoles specifically to keep them sitting at home, rather than out on the dangerous streets.
• SonicSoul 13y ago
  funny, i was just speaking with someone this weekend who was convinced about correlation to crime in NYC vs legalized abortion. (Donohue-Levitt hypothesis) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_ef...
• Symmetry 13y ago
  Scott Alexander had a pretty good blog post on other sorts of potential biological correlates with crime recently. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/18/proposed-biological-explanations-for-historical-trends-in-crime/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/18/proposed-biological-exp...
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• jbb555 13y ago
  No. It's mostly due to the big increase in standards of living over the past 40 years. But the BBC don't want to admit that things have actually improved quite a lot because it conflicts with the narrative they try to push day after day so it must be...petrol.