Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Crime Reduction Linked To Lead-Free Gasoline

Posted by kdawson on from the getting-the-lead-out dept.

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."

7 of 616 comments (clear)

  1. Lead by jcicora · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So does this mean with all the lead paint we are seeing in toys now, we will see another spike in violent behavior.

    1. Re:Lead by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doubtful. I'm no expert, but I would imagine that the amount of lead you'll absorb by handling a small toy covered in lead paint is going to be at least several orders of magnitude less than what you'd be inhaling from the emissions of every car, truck, and bus on the planet (and at 1970s emissions standards) every day.

      A small toy with a coat of leaded paint is relatively inert in comparison, and even if you scraped every ounce of paint off of the toy and ingested it, I'd bet that your total exposure would be considerably less. Granted, the effects of massive single doses are probably going to be quite different than long-term exposure, and you'd probably die if you did ingest that much of a heavy metal in one go.

      Widespread use of lead paint is a bad thing, as is the widespread use of leaded gas. Lead's been conclusively shown to be a carcinogen and something you want to avoid if you can. That said, unless you eat the stuff or are exposed to minute amounts in aerosol form for a prolonged period of time, it's probably not going to do a whole lot of damage. The people who produced/imported those toys should indeed be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but I don't think it's cause for widespread panic yet.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:Lead by rundgren · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is anyone else reminded of Freakonomics ? In this book, the same drop in crime in the nineties is explained by Roe vs. Wade leading to less unwanted children being born.

  2. That's funny... by r_jensen11 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...Freakonomics correlated the drop in crime rates with the legalization of abortion. Which sounds more sound of a theory to you?

  3. Maybe in another few decades... by feelbad_feelsgood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... the crime wave will recede from Eastern US cities like Baltimore, where every single property in the entire city was painted with lead right up until the ban in 1978. Thing is, lead paint was used because of its durability, so there is no guarantee that these cities are even in the downward part of the curve yet, as the paint may just now be starting to chip and find its way into children's lungs/guts.

  4. What else happened in 1973? by spun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Roe v. Wade. Reduction in unwanted kids results in less criminals. More abortions for all!

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  5. State-by-state correlations by Geof · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are techniques to take some account of these factors. According to the NYT article, the study's author "uses small variations in the lead content of gasoline from state to state to strengthen her argument." So we have: 1) a correlation between violent crime and presence of lead in the environment, 2) support from state-by-state comparisons, 3) lead poisoning is linked to brain damage resulting in violent behaviors. Is that enough? Probably not - but it's suggestive, and with such sensational claims I expect there will be plenty of peer review.

    You're also accusing the result of being a "pet theory". It may be. It may be that many or most scientists cheat. But we shouldn't assume - with no evidence whatsoever - that any particular scientist is acting in bad faith. Do that, and we'll find scientists living down to our expectations.

    You may find the study "hard to believe", that it could "prove anything you like". If you don't examine the method, your complaint could also be leveled at any study you like. If you want better science, make specific criticisms - unless of course you don't want science at all.