http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/m...1193069109-tIv/I01qmqYqqX/fw3A7Iw&oref=slogin Has the Clean Air Act done more to fight crime than any other policy in American history? That is the claim of a new environmental theory of criminal behavior. In the early 1990s, a surge in the number of teenagers threatened a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. But to the surprise of some experts, crime fell steadily instead. Many explanations have been offered in hindsight, including economic growth, the expansion of police forces, the rise of prison populations and the end of the crack epidemic. But no one knows exactly why crime declined so steeply. The answer, according to Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, an economist at Amherst College, lies in the cleanup of a toxic chemical that affected nearly everyone in the United States for most of the last century. After moving out of an old townhouse in Boston when her first child was born in 2000, Reyes started looking into the effects of lead poisoning. She learned that even low levels of lead can cause brain damage that makes children less intelligent and, in some cases, more impulsive and aggressive. She also discovered that the main source of lead in the air and water had not been paint but rather leaded gasoline until it was phased out in the 1970s and 80s by the Clean Air Act, which took blood levels of lead for all Americans down to a fraction of what they had been. Putting the two together, she says, it seemed that this big change in peoples exposure to lead might have led to some big changes in behavior. Reyes found that the rise and fall of lead-exposure rates seemed to match the arc of violent crime, but with a 20-year lag just long enough for children exposed to the highest levels of lead in 1973 to reach their most violence-prone years in the early 90s, when crime rates hit their peak. Such a correlation does not prove that lead had any effect on crime levels. But in an article published this month in the B.E. Journal of Economic ****ysis and Policy, Reyes uses small variations in the lead content of gasoline from state to state to strengthen her argument. If other possible sources of crime like beer consumption and unemployment had remained constant, she estimates, the switch to unleaded gas alone would have caused the rate of violent crime to fall by more than half over the 1990s. If lead poisoning is a factor in the development of criminal behavior, then countries that didnt 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. According to a comparison of nine countries published this year by Rick Nevin in the journal Environmental Research, crime rates around the world are just starting to respond to the removal of lead from gasoline and paint. It really does sound like a bad science-fiction plot, says Nevin, a senior adviser to the National Center for Healthy Housing. The idea that a society could have systematically poisoned its youngest children with the same neurotoxins in two different ways over the same century is almost impossible to believe. The magnitude of these claims has been met with a fair amount of skepticism. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, wonders how lead could have had such a strong effect on violent crime while, according to Reyes, it showed almost no effect on property crimes like theft. He also doubts that the hypothesis could explain the plunge in the U.S. murder rate from the 1930s through the 1950s. I certainly think its a reasonable exercise, Miron says. We just have to be appropriately su****ious of how much you can actually show. The theory will be put to the test as children grow up in Indonesia, Venezuela and sub-Saharan Africa, where leaded gasoline has just recently been phased out. Meanwhile, the list of countries that still use lead in gas Afghanistan, Serbia and Iraq, as well as much of North Africa and Central Asia does not rule out a connection with violence. No matter how suggestive the economists data, it takes a doctor to show that some of the people most damaged by lead are out there breaking the law. Herbert Needleman, the University of Pittsburgh psychiatrist and pediatrician whose work helped persuade the government to ban lead in the 1970s, recently studied a sample of juvenile delinquents in Pittsburgh; the group had significantly more lead in their bones than their peers. And lead may not be the only source of damage. The National Childrens Study will soon begin to track more than 100,000 children to determine the effects of exposure to common pesticides, a**** other chemicals. <NYT_AUTHOR_ID> Jascha Hoffman is on the staff of The New York Review of Books.
People who do these kinds of studies are idiots. Smart as all hell but idiots. People who commit crimes do it because they want to. Not because they have a metal problem or an illness. I'm tired of all the excuses for what people do.
Sorry. I just hate that there is a drug for everything and nobody is responsible for their own actions anymore.
...and they want to commit crimes because they have a mental problem or an illness. There's a difference between finding the reason people do things, and excusing what they do. The study is about finding the reason, not letting them off the hook.
"She learned that even low levels of lead can cause brain damage that makes children less intelligent" Does this explain the rise of rap music, saggy pants and ball caps worn at strange angles on the head? Hmmm...
AMEN! I was a Boy Scout Leader from 1990 until this past year and it killed me how many parents look for the least excuse to drug up their kids in the name of better living through science rather than say their child had a behavior problem or bad manners. I had parents come ask me howw come little Johnny behaved so well for me on campouts or other activities and had such a problem at home and school. My reply was always children live up to your least expectation and will do anything you allow them to get away with. Poor parenting is more of a problem than lead in the gas, paint, atmosphere or anywhere else you might find it. First you got to be a parent, then you can be a friend. I can't count all the kids I dealt with whose parents wanted to be little Jonhhy's friend rather than teach him the right way to function in society.
An interesting paper, although I didn't get that she was excusing criminal behavior from it... I found it odd that she did not use/quote do***ented data that fetal exposure to high levels of lead has been shown to over double the chance of developing schizophrenia later in life... Does schizophrenia or other mental illnesses make you a criminal? Maybe yes, maybe no... Untreated, mental illnesses certainly could make you less likely to blend into society and obey the law and that's enough to get you tagged as a "Criminal"... Great post. Very thought provoking!
The presence of lead was worse in the 40's 50's and 60's. I dont recall juvenile delinquency being an issue that needed study then. How about just considering the lack of morality, responsiblity and disipline. Everyone wants to blame the system for their lack of responsibility.
The real problem with studies like this, is that 98% of the people who read about them, don't understand what they read.
Also, a chronic lack of correct spelling. There may have been more lead in the 40's, 50's ad 60's - but there were less cars. Besides the article claims a 20 year lag. Kids born int he 60's rip off liquor stores in the 80's. Who knows - interesting tho. There is no doubt that lead will **** you up and I am personally happy it's not in gasoline anymore.
Studies are studies and there will alwas be people who will agree and disagree about them and/or anythng else. But it is pretty clear that lead can be pretty harmful to children in particular in a variety of know ways and definitely no real benefit at elevated levels. My guess is that it can't be that great for adults either although most studies are oriented to lead harming developing tissues. Regardless, it has now been proven that we absolutely don't need lead in gasoline to make engines run better. Why take something toxic and make it even worse and then vaporize it, spread it all over the place and breath it in. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that is a pretty stupid thing to do. Same for mercury and ****nic too as far as I am concerned although they tend to come off as a by product of beneficial things like generating energy so a little different story, but still not great for you. Now whether this has anything to do with crime rates, I don't know, but an interesting idea to think about. My guess it is a bit of a stretch to relate the 2 giving how many variables have to be considered, but whatever... Not sure the gist of the thread is important to the h.a.m.b at this point since fortunately for all of us you can't get leaded gas anymore anyway and the few diehards that still chose to add it probably doesn't matter much as mostly they are poisoning themselves more than anyone else. The sad thing is compared to a lot of other man made chemicals they have out now with little to no regulation, lead might look like a vitamin. Now back to injecting paint thinner and benzene directly into my veins.
Has anyone done a study on how the parents of children during the 70's reacted to children compared to parents during the 40'S? As a child, when I did something wrong I had the snot slaped out of me. My lead addled mind soon figured if I didnt want the snot slaped out of me, I need to do things different next time. Seems to have worked so far, I'm still paying taxes at age 65, and not from a cell.
my horrible spelling is probably a result of growing up in the 60's/70's and all the lead I ****ed in. that's my excuse anyway and sticking with it.
Now that is a differnet topic. My parents would have knocked the snot out of me too with a lead pipe if they had one handy when needed. Fortunately, when they did they mostly just had their hands and belts with the occ***ional switch they made us go cut off the bush as part of the lesson. I am still out of jail too, but I don't plan on treating my son to that same kind of treatment. I am hoping I can teach him the right way to do stuff without that.
****. I'm 23. Grew up in the 80s/90s. If i did something wrong, my parents applied the board of education to the seat of learning! No ifs, ands, or (no pun intended) buts about it! I knew better than to act up! It wasn't a case of "if little johnny throws a fit in the toy store, he doesn't get a toy until next week". If I pulled that ****, i got beaten in the store, beaten at home, and we didn't go back for a LONG time! I felt my parents were too strict when i was growing up (relatively speaking. some say I haven't gotten there yet), but after working retail for a few years and dealing with the general public, I'm glad I was taught how to behave! Beat your kids, folks!!!! (for the right reasons, of course.)
Didn't they used to make little toy soldiers out of lead? I'm not talking trace amount of lead in the paint, I'm talking about lead toys. Also, what about lead pipes in very old houses for water. At the very least, lead soldiered joints after copper plumbing came into being. I agree with whoever said there was a lot more lead exposure in the '30s, '40s and '50s. The rise in crime in the '80s and '90s also convieniently co-incides with the rise of single-parent/broken families, the first time the country hit the 50-percent divorce rate, the rise of the two-income family and the advent of "latch key kids." Remember them? Remember when it was big news how many kids were being left home alone after school because both parents were entering the work force? Now you don't even hear that word, because it's the norm and stay-at-home moms are the exception. It was also when the self-absorbed Me Generation's children started getting old enough to raise hell. When the parents grew up on ***, drugs, rock & roll and if it feels good--do it, it's only natural that it would be magnified in their offspring. The corresponding new coverage, social and government intervention did a whole lot to bring crime rates back down, by bringing the trouble makers under control. I understand the study...lead pollution in the air, the entire population brain damaged, 20 year lag while they grow up, but I don't get from their Point A to their Point B. If that was the case, the baby boomers born after WWII would have been the high-water mark for crime in the '60s. Could lead poisoning contribute? Sure...Was it the cause? Certainly not. If for no other reason than I doubt 1970 was the all-time high for lead exposure. -Brad
Everyone needs an excuse for why criminals are criminals, and nobody wants to be responsible for their actions. Two words sum up this whole concept. BULL ****!
Ahh yes, spoken like a true intellectual. If you injected a whole population of teenage boys with testosterone - you would expect to see altered behavior. Why is it such a stretch to have the same effect here? Chemicals have been proven to affect people's actions (ever had a drink?). I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that lead, which has been shown independently to increase violent tendencies in humans, is less prevalent in the youth of today than it was 20 years ago, that overall as a society there will be less violence. It doesn't mean it is the only reason, but it certainly sounds like it could be a contributing factor. You do know that the downfall of roman society is largely attributed to their use of lead pipes for drinking water? That's just a fact - skeletal remains of roman's have such high amounts of lead it's amazing they even survived at all. They all went crazy from it. It's an interesting concept. I agree it's a stretch - but certainly there is as much evidence to support it as there is to rule it out. I think we are all better off without lead. Now let me get back to fixing a few dents in my fender... oh wait -
Too much lead in the blood settles in the lower portion of the anatomy causing too much lead in the ***. My dad beat the lead out of my *** when it got to a dangerous level so I wasnt effected by it in my latter years.
I would imagine that the level of lead in the environment kept going up as there were more and more people born who kept driving more and more cars. Only with the widespread use of catalytic convertors in cars, would the leaded motor fuel usage drop. So, is the elimination of tetraethyl lead in motor fuel responsible for a decrerase in violent crime? Who knows? Could be a number of things - or a combination. It sure as **** isn't a sudden rise in stay-at-home mothers, two parent households, or educational standards. Those all went south thru the 1970's. Well, I think it's crack... -bill
I would bet lots of older HAMBers have lots of extra lead absorbed through skin while cleaning parts in 1960's era gasoline...I don't even want to think how much time I spent sitting over a bucket of gas brushing at filthy chunks of s**** iron.
i pumped alot of leaded gas in my time, i'm sure that breathing the fumes coming out of gas tanks as you pumped gas into them would have to give a higher rate of exposure, they should study old gas pump attendants. what was i talking about?
A quick study of lead workers would show if there is correlation between lead blood levels and violence...or intelligence. Numerous civilizations used lead in their cosmetics, drinks, and food, but I guess you don't go violent unless you inhale.
think this explains why my EX is so freakin stupid..musta ate too much lead..and too much of the air in her head is laced with lead. too many excuses in this world for stupid ***ed people these days..think this is why we are in the mess we are in these days. no one can take responsibility for their actions anymore. I know its just a study..but our government probably funded it! so hows that for stupid..your tax dollars at work
The Jalopy Journal
