Crime Reduction Linked To Lead-Free Gasoline 616
Hugh Pickens writes "Even low levels of lead can cause brain damage, increasing the likelihood of behavioral and cognitive traits such as impulsivity, aggressiveness, and low IQ that are strongly linked with criminal behavior. The NYTimes has a story on how the phasing out of leaded gasoline starting with the Clean Air Act in 1973 may have led to a 56% drop in violent crime in the US in the 1990s. An economics professor at Amherst College, Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, discovered the connection and wrote a paper comparing the reduction of lead from gasoline between states (PDF) and the reduction of violent crime. She constructed a table linking crime rates in every state to childhood lead exposure in that state 20 or 30 years earlier. If lead poisoning is a factor in the development of criminal behavior, then countries that didn't switch to unleaded fuel until the 1980s, like Britain and Australia, should soon see a dip in crime as the last lead-damaged children outgrow their most violent years."
correlation, causation and all that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I haven't read the paper
Saw the Same Thing With Abortion (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to know if forcing your beliefs on other people is worth twice as much crime? Is making cheaper, more effective paint worth twice as much crime? Personally I'd say no to both of those but I'm sure half the country disagrees with me on the first point.
Re:Other possible causes? (Score:3, Insightful)
ARRRR! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I haven't read the paper
Re:Prison Population (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA says that _violent_ crime is down. If there are fewer violent offenders, then how does that explain why the prisons are overfilled? The prison population exploded because we're putting more _nonviolent_ offenders in jail.
Bad troll, no cookie. Try better next time.
--
BMO
Re:Other possible causes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Scientific research is being abused even more in this sensationalist age. Listen, experimental design is simple, really, and therein lies the problem. It's easy enough to come up with a study, run on a limited population, at a level of probability just under then better-than-random threshold that will prove your pet theory. The number of factors involved in the commission of crimes (violent or otherwise) are so diverse, that to attribute it to one factor is absurd. Could it be an increase in law enforcement? Perhaps an increase in affluence in certain areas and/or reduction in poverty? Could it be the increased vigilance of people in general?
I find it very hard to believe that this study could have controls tight enough to take into account all the other factors involved in crime. I'm sure there are enough other things out there that correlate positively/negatively with the reduction in lead in gasoline that you could use this study to prove anything you like.
Re:Lead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet again it bears repeating... (Score:3, Insightful)
science
correlation
causation
the word imply.
Re:Knife slices both ways (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, is this some sort of hilarious joke? At least link the 'research papers' as they certainly must be up for review or published somewhere!
Re:McStats: Funny, not Biotech! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to bash their study, fine, but at least RTFP, not just the summary on slashdot.
Hey, it makes a prediction, that's REAL science... (Score:4, Insightful)
i) Observation
ii) Theory
iii) Prediction
iv) Experiment
In THAT order.
An awful lot of "science" these days seems to forget about the last two items - and they're the most important.
Will the prediction turn out to be true? Who knows
Re:McStats: Funny, not Biotech! (Score:5, Insightful)
* Slide Rule and CPUs: This would show a marked drop which could be mapped by time and income bracket (as these would be the two factors mandating uptake), and not geographic region by state.
* Global warming: This would show a marked drop which could be mapped by latitude, proximity to large bodies of water, and time, as these would all be mitigating/exaggerating factors in the relevant changes.
Find correlations with these factors, and maybe one of your theories can be tested. (and actually, global warming might be a good one - too much heat means more agitated people at lower latitudes, more happy people at higher latitudes, if we take the theory that crime to be inversely proportionate to happiness).
Occams razor people - this correlation works because it is one of the simpler explanations that fits what happened. Additionally, a testable prediction has been made from it - in 10-15 years, the theory will be tested.
Re:RTFP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Other possible causes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or do all things in this world HAVE to be simplified to a singular cause?
Re:Lead (Score:3, Insightful)
As a previous poster represented, inhalation of exhaust is a very efficient vector. Also, there is contact with materials on which exhaust is deposited - soils and water. Like pesticides (or nuclear waste, for that matter), a widespread low-level exposure is all that is necessary if total dosage characteristics come into play. An organism living continually exposed to low levels of a toxin that has cumulative effects may not be noticeably damaged immediately, but it will eventually manifest.
Re:Yet again it bears repeating... (Score:5, Insightful)
Correlation does not imply causation. While the correlation may be very strong, causation cannot be assumed without ruling out many other potential contributing factors.
How many people have to post this needless gibberish over and over again? Is it some sort of karma whoring?
I mean, the effing SUMMARY got it 100% right:
"Even low levels of lead can cause brain damage, increasing the likelihood of behavioral and cognitive traits such as impulsivity, aggressiveness, and low IQ that are strongly linked with criminal behavior."
We know lead causes brain damage, and we know brain damage can lead to agressiveness, violence, etc.
"The NYTimes has a story on how the phasing out of leaded gasoline starting with the Clean Air Act in 1973 may have led to a 56% drop in violent crime in the US in the 1990s."
Key words: MAY HAVE LED TO. Its a hypothesis. Good.
They aren't asserting causation. They are noting a correlation, and using reasoning to form a hypothesis. So far so good.
An economics professor at Amherst College, Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, discovered the connection and wrote a paper comparing the reduction of lead from gasoline between states (PDF) and the reduction of violent crime. She constructed a table linking crime rates in every state to childhood lead exposure in that state 20 or 30 years earlier.
Documenting the correlation. Even better, its not anecdotal. We're collecting real empirical measurable evidence.
If lead poisoning is a factor in the development of criminal behavior, then countries that didn't switch to unleaded fuel until the 1980s, like Britain and Australia, should soon see a dip in crime as the last lead-damaged children outgrow their most violent years."
A useful prediction? Can it be? Holy shit. Its the full on scientfic method in action. Observe World, Formulate Hypothesis, Test Hypothesis.
I grant that is not the best possible test of the hypothesis, because its not a closed experiment, and its not really repeatable, and a lot of unknowns can get in the way, but we take what we can get. Human-centric sciences like medicine and psychology, or sciences like astrophysics or evolution don't have the luxury of perfect experiments - we can't raise humans in isolated bubbles, nor send a selection of stars into identicale blackholes nor watch a million isolated generations of people --
All we can do in these cases is come up with hypotheses and models, make predictions based on those models to see if we can find examples / counter examples in the observable world.
Overall, its good science here. If the dip in crime occurs where they occur when they predict it, it obviously it won't prove or disprove the hypothesis but it will add significantly to the body of evidence that supports it. If it doesn't occur then we'll have to refine or discard the hypothesis. If ultimately the hypothesis is junk it'll eventually get tossed out. Science is full of wrong hypothesises, but they are the best we have at any given time... that's how it works.
So what exactly do you object to here? That you felt the need to drone about the difference between causation and correlation. It seems everybody involved already got that memo.
Re:correlation, causation and all that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did any of these studies track the same individuals by economic class. I could definitely see a correlation between wealth and lead exposure, and could could also see there being an identical correlation between wealth and crime. If that is the case, it could very well mean that the connection isn't lead to crime, but wealth to crime.
And, if you are feeling the urge to accuse me of being an evil lead pusher, a shill for the lead industry, or a lead denier. Please understand that I do fully believe that lead exposure is a bad thing, and can have all sorts of ill effects. I just don't want to accept research as valid just because it happens to agree with what I already believe.
Correlation and causation (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a sophisticated analysis; I wouldn't call it, as some commenters above have, "junk science". It would be surprising for their observed relation to hold, but their interpretation be incorrect. It would be interesting for someone to really come up with an alternative explanation of this paper's observations.
As a side note, I'm pretty sure that by now most lay people, and everyone reading this forum, is aware that correlation does not imply causation. And I'd be willing to guess that the vast majority of scientists have been aware of this elementary statistical fact for some time. It's likely that scientists take many potential influences into account before submitting for publication. So can we please exercise some restraint in the future and actually read the article before denouncing it as "junk science" because, as everyone knows, correlation is not causation? I am emphatically not asking people to take what the researcher says on faith, but if you decry the article without reading it, then your words are essentially noise.
Re:Lead (Score:3, Insightful)
At 25 cents a gallon, gas was as expensive or more expensive than gas today at $2.46.
A new car was about three grand (vs 36,000 now)
A new house was about 16 grand (vs 160,000
I agree tho- fun muscle cars are gone.
---
The biggest problem is you have so many more things to spend your money on today. Back then, you did not have as many options.
Re:Lead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Prison Population (Score:5, Insightful)
From where do you get your stats, besides your arse?
"But more than legalization, I support democracy."
Then you should support the ability of states to decide on their own instead of the use of the commerce clause by the federal government to beat up states that don't toe the line, shouldn't you?
Funny about your use of the word "democracy" there when you actually support federalism. Troll much?
--
BMO
Re:Prison Population (Score:3, Insightful)
Discrimination against women is a broad term (excuse the pun) but if you mean outright subjugation, then I would say that's a fraction less offensive than slavery, so I'd still go with democracy if that were the question.
So, if I lived in a democracy that allowed slavery or discrimination against women or marijuana prohibition, I would work inside the democracy to affect change, instead of working outside the democracy, for instance by overthrowing the government and installing myself as unelected leader.
Luckily our society has already addressed universal personal rights and universal democratic suffrage. Now we can quibble about the little things, like abortion, drugs, immigration, and taxes.
PS the logical fallacy your employed in your unsuccessful attempt to undermine my message is a 'straw man attack' [wikipedia.org]; but you likely already knew that.
Re:Lead (Score:3, Insightful)
"By the year 2020, when the effects of the Clean Air Act and Roe
v. Wade would be complete, violent crime could be as much as 70% lower than it would be if lead
had remained in gasoline, and as much as 35-45% lower than it would be if abortion had never
been legalized. At the same time, history suggests that other unknown factors would have
increased crime by perhaps 3-5% per year."
"The legalization of abortion, as identified by Donohue and Levitt, remains an important and significant factor.
Thus, two major acts of government, the Clean Air Act and Roe v. Wade, neither intended to have
any effect on crime, may have been the largest factors affecting violent crime trends at the turn of
century."
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it's that mandatory sentencing laws for drug crimes and 3 strikes laws took a lot of violent offenders and potential violent offenders off the street, rather than less lead.
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but finding a causal relationship between lowered crime and more people spending more time in prison is easier than finding it between lowered crime and lowered lead.
The economy in the 90s was better than in the 70s. Remember how bad inflation was under Carter? You can tie lower crime rates to a better economy (more people with jobs, more people with hope, less idle hands for the devil's work).
I'm not saying any one thing led to it. I'm just saying that you can tie a drop in crime in the 90s to a lot of things. There are more compelling theories than lead, IMO.
States' Rights! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok. This is getting a liiiittle bit offtopic, but I've gotta put in my US$0.02.
I'm from northern California (Santa Cruz, specifically) and I grew up in Georgia, where some people are still waging the Civil War. The only thing that I take from the southern side of the Civil War arguments for/against secession is states' rights. According to the Constitution, those powers not explicitly given the Federal government are reserved for the States (silly me; I left my pocket Constitution at home so someone else will have to quote which article/section that is). Although Congress is tasked with the regulation of interstate commerce, this does not (at least not to us strict constructionists) give them the right to regulate the sale of items in an individual state.
Precedent: gambling, automobiles with emission control systems only required in CA, sex toys (oh yes; I just went there), etc etc etc.
While I was living in California the US government sent agents to wreck up marijuana farms that had been authorized for State use. If you have a prescription for marijuana, and you sell it to your friend in Nevada, you have clearly violated federal law. If you consume it for your own medicinal use, as you are authorized to by the State of California, I don't see what the problem is. After the raids, the city council of Santa Cruz gave out muffins to anyone who had a prescription on the steps of City Hall, and there wasn't a damn thing that the Feds could do about it.
The Federal government has every right to regulate whatever they want if it truly is interstate commerce. They also have an obligation to act for the greater good of the Nation as a whole, and I think a lot more than just 20% of americans realize that the marijuana prohibition causes more problems and more anguish than it prevents. The other 80% (or whatever it really is) just haven't seen someone who's suffering greatly have their pain eased by physician-prescribed and physician-monitored marijuana use (full disclosure: my father died of cancer when he was in his early fifties; he would have died sooner had he not been given a certain miracle drug that regulated his appetite and reduced the damage to his body done by chemotherapy/radiation).
Also... I think you probably should read The Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist 64, 65, 41-43. A lot of people forget what our forefathers were really thinking, but it's all there.
Re:Prison Population (Score:3, Insightful)
I support Constitutional democracy. The whole point of having a Constitution was so that the rule of the mob wouldn't be able to easily infringe upon rights.
-b.
Re:Lead levels in rome were already looked at. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh come on (Score:3, Insightful)
You, however, thought it was a ridiculous idea. That is not so - I find the idea very logical. You do the same old thing (Lord, how I get tired of people who only see black or white) - you took the black or white position that either lead had ALL the effect or it had NO effect. No middle ground for you.
As for smoking, drinking and pre-natal care...no, I don't think the crime rate drop had much to do with them because those factors all have to do with the overall health of children, not the aggressivness of children. And NO, I don't think that Christian fundamentalism has the slightest effect on the crime rate. Christian fundamentalism has "risen" in political power, not in significant numbers of practicing members (not to mention the ironic fact that the group is among the most hawkish, pro-war, intolerant and hateful groups around). Children of the lamb - riiiight. To use your term...sheesh.
A better economy - yes, I think that can have an effect on the crime rate although economic opportunities for the poor and minorities have changed very little over the past 20 years so would have had little effect there.