[link]
Short summation: There is really strong evidence that low to medium level lead poisoning is one of the leading causes of crime; lead emissions correlate with a 20-year lead on crime. The correlation holds on a national level - the same patterns are present in Australia, the UK, the US, and every other nation thus examined, to such extents that is almost a statistical anomaly how -well- it fits. It holds on a state level - the more emissions in a state, the higher the crime. It holds on a county level. It even holds, albeit much more weakly, on a neighborhood level.
It would cost ~$200b to clean up the lead in most of the country, including tearing down and replacing houses, and cleaning up lead deposits in soil throughout the country.
And I'd suggest, given the evidence, it's worth doing.
Now, if anybody has any evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it. I can't find any.
Short summation: There is really strong evidence that low to medium level lead poisoning is one of the leading causes of crime; lead emissions correlate with a 20-year lead on crime. The correlation holds on a national level - the same patterns are present in Australia, the UK, the US, and every other nation thus examined, to such extents that is almost a statistical anomaly how -well- it fits. It holds on a state level - the more emissions in a state, the higher the crime. It holds on a county level. It even holds, albeit much more weakly, on a neighborhood level.
It would cost ~$200b to clean up the lead in most of the country, including tearing down and replacing houses, and cleaning up lead deposits in soil throughout the country.
And I'd suggest, given the evidence, it's worth doing.
Now, if anybody has any evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it. I can't find any.
Based on Kevin Drum's article on the subject, I concur.
All I'm gonna say is, a 95% correlation was found between the quantity of iron ingots shipped from Pittsburgh to Chicago and the number of registered prostitutes in Buenos Aires.
[link]
[link]
That has a very official-sounding name in statistics: "Going fishing."
The rule, in statistics, as in science, is you start with a hypothesis, and you test that specific hypothesis. If you feed a system endless amounts of data, it will find a correlation somewhere. That 95% correlation means there's a 95% chance of that correlation being valid; if you've tested for more than 20 correlations, you have around even odds of having found one.
See [link]
However, in this case the scientists have done their homework; they ran their tests, and then sought out other data sets to examine as well. Rick Nevin, one of the statisticians doing the research, has run the data on nine countries, and found strong correlations. Jessica Reyes, another statistician, ran the data on different states, comparing states on the basis of leaded gasoline phase-outs (different states followed different schedules on eliminating leaded gasoline); it tracked exceptionally well. There have been hundreds of citations and follow-ups on their work, and only one study out of all of them contradicted the findings. (And, for what it's worth, that study was funded by the largest lead fuel additive company, and engages in a lot of statistical hijinx, some of which are mentioned elsewhere in this thread.)
Moreover, studies performed have shown demonstrably higher blood levels in criminals than in the general population. The link between lead and aggressive behavior has long been known, as well as its effect on intelligence. Neurologist David Bellinger is one of hundreds of individuals who has published studies on the subject.
Unfortunately, virtually all of these studies are behind paywalls, so unless you have access to a university library I can't give them to you to examine yourself.
The rule, in statistics, as in science, is you start with a hypothesis, and you test that specific hypothesis. If you feed a system endless amounts of data, it will find a correlation somewhere. That 95% correlation means there's a 95% chance of that correlation being valid; if you've tested for more than 20 correlations, you have around even odds of having found one.
See [link]
However, in this case the scientists have done their homework; they ran their tests, and then sought out other data sets to examine as well. Rick Nevin, one of the statisticians doing the research, has run the data on nine countries, and found strong correlations. Jessica Reyes, another statistician, ran the data on different states, comparing states on the basis of leaded gasoline phase-outs (different states followed different schedules on eliminating leaded gasoline); it tracked exceptionally well. There have been hundreds of citations and follow-ups on their work, and only one study out of all of them contradicted the findings. (And, for what it's worth, that study was funded by the largest lead fuel additive company, and engages in a lot of statistical hijinx, some of which are mentioned elsewhere in this thread.)
Moreover, studies performed have shown demonstrably higher blood levels in criminals than in the general population. The link between lead and aggressive behavior has long been known, as well as its effect on intelligence. Neurologist David Bellinger is one of hundreds of individuals who has published studies on the subject.
Unfortunately, virtually all of these studies are behind paywalls, so unless you have access to a university library I can't give them to you to examine yourself.
That is unfortunate.
What's the correlation like between lead phase out internationally?
What's the correlation like between lead phase out internationally?
I'm skeptical.
Of the nine countries Nevin studied, the same; the variable tracked for 60-90% of crimes given a 23-year lead time. (That's the error bar, I believe, meaning lead was predictive of somewhere between 60-90% of the crime, which is a fancy way of saying that 10-40% of the crime rate either had nothing to do with lead or the signal was too weak to identify.)
I would prefer to clean up the lead though.
While everyone else wants to bitch and gripe over whether or not such contamination really does yield higher crime rates and lower IQ's, I am simply relieved to see conservatives looking for alternative methods of solving crime that do not involve being a police statocracy.
If you're referring to me, I'm not really conservative. I'm middle-libertarian; I could be convinced on things like the death penalty (which I'm weakly for, at the moment, although I'd prefer a substantially stronger burden of evidence), favor a middle ground on intellectual property (down with software patents, for one!), and favor certain kinds of redistribution (I believe the government should be limited to taxing land (and land only, not the improvements placed upon it), and don't believe in the current welfare state, but do believe excess funds from aforementioned property taxation should be distributed evenly across the population). I also tend to be for certain kinds of regulation (of the "do no harm" variety, not the "in society's interests" variety), but regard these as -usually- being better served by tort law.
Oh, actually I was referring to the objectivist mentioned in the title of this thread.
Issues such as capital punishment are matters of a libertarian-authoritarian scale (specifically civil libertarianism), rather than a left-right scale. However being opposed to patent restrictions may put you closer to the individualist/general market-libertarian spectrum of things, rather than the libertarian-capitalist spectrum. So perhaps center-right? To be honest what you advocate sounds strongly reminiscent of Geonomics. Regardless I would most certainly not consider you a 'middle-libertarian' based on our past discussions. Centrists on the libertarian scale are mutualists, syndicalists and the like who advocate a blend free market economies with common ownership of the means of production and co-operative living.
When you say, "of the 'do no harm' variety", I assume you mean actions which violate natural law; the right to be free from the threat of murder, rape, assault, libel and fraud?
Issues such as capital punishment are matters of a libertarian-authoritarian scale (specifically civil libertarianism), rather than a left-right scale. However being opposed to patent restrictions may put you closer to the individualist/general market-libertarian spectrum of things, rather than the libertarian-capitalist spectrum. So perhaps center-right? To be honest what you advocate sounds strongly reminiscent of Geonomics. Regardless I would most certainly not consider you a 'middle-libertarian' based on our past discussions. Centrists on the libertarian scale are mutualists, syndicalists and the like who advocate a blend free market economies with common ownership of the means of production and co-operative living.
When you say, "of the 'do no harm' variety", I assume you mean actions which violate natural law; the right to be free from the threat of murder, rape, assault, libel and fraud?
That was me. 
I don't think Mother Jones keeps many Objectivists in employ.
I think your version of "center" for libertarians is far-left by US standards, although we tend to use the word libertarian in a radically different way.
Murder, rape, and assault; libel and fraud to a lesser extent; their inclusion in that particular list is like arson, murder, and jaywalking. They're crimes against the person, to be sure, but not on the same order.
I don't think Mother Jones keeps many Objectivists in employ.
I think your version of "center" for libertarians is far-left by US standards, although we tend to use the word libertarian in a radically different way.
Murder, rape, and assault; libel and fraud to a lesser extent; their inclusion in that particular list is like arson, murder, and jaywalking. They're crimes against the person, to be sure, but not on the same order.
"although we tend to use the word libertarian in a radically different way"
I use the term as a measurement of both economic and civil liberty.
I use the term as a measurement of both economic and civil liberty.
"Common ownership" isn't exactly part of economic liberty. It's not necessarily opposed to it, but it's not part of it, either. I think the general libertarian position is that the proper market mechanisms are outside the domain of government mandate; the implementations of those mechanisms aren't really part of the politics, but personal choice.
This may hold true on a state level, but I'm from an area that's awash in decades of heavy metals pollution yet maintains only a modest crime rate. My frequent bouts of homicidal rage are also entirely unrelated.
Not all heavy metal poisoning behaves similarly. Mercury, for example, generally affects lung function and fertility before it affects brain function.
Lead poisoning behaves altogether differently than other heavy metal poisonings, in part because it fixates in the body; most other heavy metals can be chelated out, but lead replaces calcium, and remains in the body, causing continuing damage.
Lead poisoning behaves altogether differently than other heavy metal poisonings, in part because it fixates in the body; most other heavy metals can be chelated out, but lead replaces calcium, and remains in the body, causing continuing damage.
Still, it's not an area that has the funds for lead paint removal. My high school only had (most of) its lead paint removed early last decade, and that's a public building. Private residences don't get the same attention.
"...heavy metal poisoning..."
This is the most brilliant thing you have ever said.
This is the most brilliant thing you have ever said.
So why aren't the Rust Belt and East Coast port cities awash in violent crime?
They were; it's been a considerable time since leaded gasoline was used, however.
Since lead was banned in gasoline, crime rates of urban, suburban, and rural areas have begun to equalize. Previously large cities had significantly higher crime rates; now they're close to equal.
Since lead was banned in gasoline, crime rates of urban, suburban, and rural areas have begun to equalize. Previously large cities had significantly higher crime rates; now they're close to equal.
I always thought one of the reasons why my old neighborhood in Philly got 'better' was because the city knocked down about 5 blocks of abandoned buildings and increased patrols.......
Well, that should be easy to examine: Did other neighborhoods which didn't knock down abandoned buildings and increase patrols also improve?
No they did not.
View all replies
It's true that the reduction of lead in gasoline has led to fewer cases of road rage, aka, "aggressive" driving.
Please come back when you have a reputable source.
Please come back when you have a reputable source.
I can give you reputable sources, but I'd just be copying them from the article I linked.
I mean, reputable articles on lead being directly linked to crime, not a bunch of loosely linked articles that do not directly correlate with one another.
Consider this. The article states gasoline lead reduction has led to reduction in crime. Bullshit. Road rage is more rampant now than ever, and is regardless of lead levels in the 1960s or today.
Consider this. The article states gasoline lead reduction has led to reduction in crime. Bullshit. Road rage is more rampant now than ever, and is regardless of lead levels in the 1960s or today.
You demand reputable sources and yet you provide none yourself.
"Road rage is more rampant now than ever"
In terms of rate or cold numbers?
"Road rage is more rampant now than ever"
In terms of rate or cold numbers?
I demanded nothing. I insisted, perhaps, in order to see the OP provide something more than a single article form a heavily biased website.
There is a plenty of documentation to show that people in general are becoming more aggressive. Road rage is only one manifested
action of a broader symptom. I'm not making it out to be so bad that a person wants to stay off the road, but there has been a defined increase.
I could care less about "cold numbers". If you want researched information, get it yourself. But hey, since you asked, I'll provide more pertinent information than numbers alone. Note that according to AAA, road rage is a major concern for drivers in 2012. Back in the mid 1980s when road rage got national attention, it was confined mostly to major US cities. So yes, there is a definite increase in activity.
[link]
[link]
There is a plenty of documentation to show that people in general are becoming more aggressive. Road rage is only one manifested
action of a broader symptom. I'm not making it out to be so bad that a person wants to stay off the road, but there has been a defined increase.
I could care less about "cold numbers". If you want researched information, get it yourself. But hey, since you asked, I'll provide more pertinent information than numbers alone. Note that according to AAA, road rage is a major concern for drivers in 2012. Back in the mid 1980s when road rage got national attention, it was confined mostly to major US cities. So yes, there is a definite increase in activity.
[link]
[link]
"I demanded nothing."
Your exact words were, "Please come back when you have a reputable source."
"There is a plenty of documentation to show that people in general are becoming more aggressive."
And yet you have not provided such documentation. The links you provided give no statistics or scientific evidence supporting your claims.
"Note that according to AAA, road rage is a major concern for drivers in 2012."
"major concern" ≠ "more rampant now than ever"
"Back in the mid 1980s when road rage got national attention, it was confined mostly to major US cities."
Again that does not necessarily imply an increase in overall road rage rates.
"So yes, there is a definite increase in activity."
An increase in "activity" (which can imply cold numbers) does not necessarily mean an increase in rate, which is what is relevant here.
"I could care less about "cold numbers".
You mean, "I could not care less", assuming you are saying that you do not care about cold numbers.
My point was that cold numbers are not necessarily relevant due to correlating population increase and distribution. The rate is what's relevant, but judging by your response it seems that you do not even know what rates and cold numbers are.
"If you want researched information, get it yourself."
Because people are obligated to provide you with an abundance of research information, but you are not obligated to do so when you make empty claims. Okay.
"I'll provide more pertinent information than numbers alone."
Wait... empty claims are more pertinent than statistical and scientific evidence? Okay.
Please come back when you have a reputable source.
Your exact words were, "Please come back when you have a reputable source."
"There is a plenty of documentation to show that people in general are becoming more aggressive."
And yet you have not provided such documentation. The links you provided give no statistics or scientific evidence supporting your claims.
"Note that according to AAA, road rage is a major concern for drivers in 2012."
"major concern" ≠ "more rampant now than ever"
"Back in the mid 1980s when road rage got national attention, it was confined mostly to major US cities."
Again that does not necessarily imply an increase in overall road rage rates.
"So yes, there is a definite increase in activity."
An increase in "activity" (which can imply cold numbers) does not necessarily mean an increase in rate, which is what is relevant here.
"I could care less about "cold numbers".
You mean, "I could not care less", assuming you are saying that you do not care about cold numbers.
My point was that cold numbers are not necessarily relevant due to correlating population increase and distribution. The rate is what's relevant, but judging by your response it seems that you do not even know what rates and cold numbers are.
"If you want researched information, get it yourself."
Because people are obligated to provide you with an abundance of research information, but you are not obligated to do so when you make empty claims. Okay.
"I'll provide more pertinent information than numbers alone."
Wait... empty claims are more pertinent than statistical and scientific evidence? Okay.
Please come back when you have a reputable source.
You mean, "I could not care less", assuming you are saying that you do not care about cold numbers.
You knew what I meant and you are being an ass about it.
My point was that cold numbers are not necessarily relevant due to correlating population increase and distribution. The rate is what's relevant, but judging by your response it seems that you do not even know what rates and cold numbers are.
The MoJo article is based off the hypothetical. Sure, certain information is verified, but the overall findings on which the article is based have not. Unvalanced admitted no such data is available in the article or elswhere that he is aware of. I conducted some research out of curiosity and found no studies linking the individual studies the way the MoJo article does to base its claims.
And yet you have not provided such documentation. The links you provided give no statistics or scientific evidence supporting your claims.
Although the original "off the cuff" statement was meant to be facetious, my point still stands that no evidence exists that indicate the reduction of lead in gasoline has led to a change in the number of incidents involving some form of aggressive driving. I used the term 'road rage" because it is a socially accepted catch-all. The OP blazed right on through this, yet you seem to focused on it.
empty claims are more pertinent than statistical and scientific evidence?
The NHTSA does indeed make the claim that aggressive driving is up, if due to nothing more than an increase in drivers on the roadways. [link]
You knew what I meant and you are being an ass about it.
My point was that cold numbers are not necessarily relevant due to correlating population increase and distribution. The rate is what's relevant, but judging by your response it seems that you do not even know what rates and cold numbers are.
The MoJo article is based off the hypothetical. Sure, certain information is verified, but the overall findings on which the article is based have not. Unvalanced admitted no such data is available in the article or elswhere that he is aware of. I conducted some research out of curiosity and found no studies linking the individual studies the way the MoJo article does to base its claims.
And yet you have not provided such documentation. The links you provided give no statistics or scientific evidence supporting your claims.
Although the original "off the cuff" statement was meant to be facetious, my point still stands that no evidence exists that indicate the reduction of lead in gasoline has led to a change in the number of incidents involving some form of aggressive driving. I used the term 'road rage" because it is a socially accepted catch-all. The OP blazed right on through this, yet you seem to focused on it.
empty claims are more pertinent than statistical and scientific evidence?
The NHTSA does indeed make the claim that aggressive driving is up, if due to nothing more than an increase in drivers on the roadways. [link]
View all replies
You know lead doesn't leap into your brain and cause an immediate violent act? The posited mechanism requires hindering brain development.
Attempting to quantify lead poisoning as a significant contributor to crime in general is a stretch. Could it be a factor in some minor scale? Perhaps, but the MoJo crap article makes a lot of assumptions. Hindered brain development (lack of intelligence) is not a direct indicator of increased disposition to violence.
Actually, it is. I can direct you to sources, but they tend to be behind paywalls. The only studies which have contradicted these findings control for spurious variables, such as maternal IQ. (Since IQ is significantly inheritable, this effectively deletes a substantial part of the signal.)
I fail to see proof that lead poisoning alone is a significant factor enough to make it quantifiable as a reason for increased crime. The claim that lack of intelligence leads to tendency to commit crimes requires MUCH more proof. It's like saying that a poor person tends to want to steal. Lower intelligence alone is not a factor in who is or is not prone to leading a life of crime. There are so many other determining factors, such as lack of proper education, that lead to increased crime.
View all replies
This sounds like liberal American hating godless hippie bullshit to me.
We could blame Australia.
Invade them next
[link]
Even Cracked has noted this. The funny thing? We've done a lot to remove lead from our environments, from gasoline to paint, there are increasingly harsher regulations to remove lead from our environments being passed to this day. I think we might be close to the point on the curve where increased effort yields fewer rewards, though. The better thing to do would be to pump that money into the agencies which actually investigate and fight lead use in the states, like the EPA and FDA.
Even Cracked has noted this. The funny thing? We've done a lot to remove lead from our environments, from gasoline to paint, there are increasingly harsher regulations to remove lead from our environments being passed to this day. I think we might be close to the point on the curve where increased effort yields fewer rewards, though. The better thing to do would be to pump that money into the agencies which actually investigate and fight lead use in the states, like the EPA and FDA.
No; we've passed regulations to prevent lead from entering the environment. The lead that's already there is still there, and relatively little has been done about it.
That's not entirely true, in places where there is lead paint, as the paint ages and begins to chip away, if repainting is done, all the old paint must be removed first. The same holds true for asbestos, you cannot repair a wall that has asbestos in it, it must be replaced(at least if we're talking professional work here, what a person does privately is difficult to regulate). However companies that don't replace their buildings in such a manner, and contractors who don't follow such regulations can be severely fined, even shut down until proper work is done. In many cases when a building is so highly contaminated the entire structure must be torn down and NO repair work can be done at all.
Certainly we haven't torn down old public housing, but that presents the difficult situation of the high costs of demolition, construction AND temporary housing. Likewise, the same costs exist in what to do about older homes with lead in them. Either the cost is on the government, which is all the people, or the cost is on a single family or individual who may face severe legal penalties if they don't clean up a mess they may not even have made, much less even be aware of!
I'm down for cleaning up lead we've already got out there, but it's a logistics and cost issue that may be too high to address quickly.
Certainly we haven't torn down old public housing, but that presents the difficult situation of the high costs of demolition, construction AND temporary housing. Likewise, the same costs exist in what to do about older homes with lead in them. Either the cost is on the government, which is all the people, or the cost is on a single family or individual who may face severe legal penalties if they don't clean up a mess they may not even have made, much less even be aware of!
I'm down for cleaning up lead we've already got out there, but it's a logistics and cost issue that may be too high to address quickly.
$200 billion to clean the problem up nationwide.
so, about 1/6th of the national budget.
The national budget is 3.6 trillion. So 1/18th.
Ah, my mistake.
View all replies
Ahh, then consider me ill-informed on this. What about removing mercury from the environment, as well, and further restricting its introduction to the water supply? It has many of the same ill-effects as lead, and travels up the food chain as well.
Mercury has different ill-effects; it tends to hit the lungs and reproductive systems hardest, whereas lead tends to hit brain development hardest. Mercury poisoning is also treatable; chelation can reverse most of the damage done except in extreme cases. The big problem with lead poisoning is that there is no known safe exposure level; chelation can bring lead levels down, but can't completely eliminate it.
Cadmium is probably just as dangerous, if not more so.
The entire ideal could be closely identified as heavy metal poisoning...
Which sounds more awesome than it really is.
Clean up lead to decrease crime? Are you nuts? Probably...
Let's see, why are there higher levels of lead in these higher crime rate areas? Maybe because the people don't have the cash to clean it up... and if they don't have the cash to clean up lead, they probably don't have the cash for other things either, like better law enforcement, security systems, anti-crime programs, after school programs, community watch programs, etc...
Yeah, cleaning up lead will soooo help the crime rate problems in these areas. BS! If you want to blow $200billion, put it towards something that actually improves people's lives, like skills education or after school programs.
You know, I get sick of how people in today's society keep trying to blame crime on the presence of some physical thing, be it a chemical/element or a gun or whatever, rather than actually taking a look at society itself!
Let's see, why are there higher levels of lead in these higher crime rate areas? Maybe because the people don't have the cash to clean it up... and if they don't have the cash to clean up lead, they probably don't have the cash for other things either, like better law enforcement, security systems, anti-crime programs, after school programs, community watch programs, etc...
Yeah, cleaning up lead will soooo help the crime rate problems in these areas. BS! If you want to blow $200billion, put it towards something that actually improves people's lives, like skills education or after school programs.
You know, I get sick of how people in today's society keep trying to blame crime on the presence of some physical thing, be it a chemical/element or a gun or whatever, rather than actually taking a look at society itself!
The higher levels of lead predated the higher crime rates by twenty years. Crime followed lead, rather than the other way around.
Lead exposure reduces IQ, increases ADHD, damages the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for mitigating aggressive responses), and myriad other things. Study after study has shown correlations between lead exposure and violent behavior.
If somebody secretly slipped you a cocktail of cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, psilocybin, alcohol, and steroids, do you think you would behave in a responsible manner (presuming you didn't have a heart attack from mixing opiates and alcohol, anyways)? Because we're talking about poisoning here, poisoning which directly impairs the brain's ability to function, not just on a short-term basis, but a long-term basis. And yes, not everyone who is exposed to lead engages in violence, but it doesn't need to be everyone. Like a sudden strong gust blowing across a crowd standing at the edge of a cliff, not everyone needs to fall in order to recognize that without the wind, many who did fall wouldn't have.
Lead exposure reduces IQ, increases ADHD, damages the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for mitigating aggressive responses), and myriad other things. Study after study has shown correlations between lead exposure and violent behavior.
If somebody secretly slipped you a cocktail of cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, psilocybin, alcohol, and steroids, do you think you would behave in a responsible manner (presuming you didn't have a heart attack from mixing opiates and alcohol, anyways)? Because we're talking about poisoning here, poisoning which directly impairs the brain's ability to function, not just on a short-term basis, but a long-term basis. And yes, not everyone who is exposed to lead engages in violence, but it doesn't need to be everyone. Like a sudden strong gust blowing across a crowd standing at the edge of a cliff, not everyone needs to fall in order to recognize that without the wind, many who did fall wouldn't have.
If crime followed lead by twenty years, then that's just one more strike against lead being the cause... areas with less lead and less crime obviously had the money to get rid of the lead once it was known to be toxic. (See previous response for reasons how money can prevent crime...)
Behavior is learned. Lead can't teach. Therefore lead is not responsible for violent behavior even if it does cause damage to the prefrontal cortex. Aggressive behavior =/= violent behavior.
Lead poisoning sysmtoms often include physical problems such as muscular weakness, abdominal pain, vomiting, and headaches. Unless you're talking about a drug addict going through withdrawal, most people become lethargic with these types of symptoms... completely opposite of violent and/or aggressive.
As another person already pointed out...
correlation =/= causation!
Despite your idealistic dreaming, crime and violence are not an easy fix. Getting rid of lead will not stop or even slow the incidents of violent crime in this country. Again, I tell you to look at society, not a substance, if you want to find the true causation of crime.
Behavior is learned. Lead can't teach. Therefore lead is not responsible for violent behavior even if it does cause damage to the prefrontal cortex. Aggressive behavior =/= violent behavior.
Lead poisoning sysmtoms often include physical problems such as muscular weakness, abdominal pain, vomiting, and headaches. Unless you're talking about a drug addict going through withdrawal, most people become lethargic with these types of symptoms... completely opposite of violent and/or aggressive.
As another person already pointed out...
correlation =/= causation!
Despite your idealistic dreaming, crime and violence are not an easy fix. Getting rid of lead will not stop or even slow the incidents of violent crime in this country. Again, I tell you to look at society, not a substance, if you want to find the true causation of crime.
If crime followed lead by twenty years, then that's just one more strike against lead being the cause
- No, it isn't. Lead doesn't affect adult minds the same way it affects developing minds.
As another person already pointed out...
correlation =/= causation!
- There's no such thing as causation in this universe, only correlation.
- No, it isn't. Lead doesn't affect adult minds the same way it affects developing minds.
As another person already pointed out...
correlation =/= causation!
- There's no such thing as causation in this universe, only correlation.
You don't know science at all, do you?
Go take a a statistics course before you say anything else!
Go take a a statistics course before you say anything else!
If you think causal links can be established using statistics, you had a really shitty statistics teacher.
Causal links are what any true science is based on. They rule out any other factors as being responsible for manipulation of data. A good statistics teacher teaches you how to distinguish between good statistical data that shows causation versus bad statistical data that shows only correlation and a biased report of said data. Correlation does not rule out other factors. Causation does.
This is what drug research is based on. This is what physics is based on. This is what chemistry is based on. These are hard sciences... true science.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
This is what drug research is based on. This is what physics is based on. This is what chemistry is based on. These are hard sciences... true science.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
View all replies
In addition to heavy metal poisoning, there are other factors like deficiencies in vitamins (e.g. Vitamin B-complex), trace minerals (e.g. zinc), essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, cholesterol, saturated fatty acids, and so on. While brain takes up only about 2% of our body weight, it consumes 20% of our energy (due to the need to constantly reset its electrical potentials). Basically, anything that impairs the brain's ability to properly generate energy has negative repercussions.
Is this the part where I note the irony that lack of eeeeeeeeevil regulations we're supposed to keep getting rid of is why lead poisoning is as high as it is, since it's typically economically cheaper not to completely eliminate lead emissions from production?
'Economically cheaper' = What's mine is mine! What's yours in negotiable.
Perhaps among the most interesting but underrated niche within the realm of economics has been the concept of externalities (they can be both good or bad, depending on various circumstances). Let us be honest. On average, individual persons and groups do not think much beyond Profits and Losses. If this sort of mentality were to be taken to its logical conclusions, we might as well revert back to the 19th century health, safety, and labor standards.
Perhaps among the most interesting but underrated niche within the realm of economics has been the concept of externalities (they can be both good or bad, depending on various circumstances). Let us be honest. On average, individual persons and groups do not think much beyond Profits and Losses. If this sort of mentality were to be taken to its logical conclusions, we might as well revert back to the 19th century health, safety, and labor standards.
"If this sort of mentality were to be taken to its logical conclusions, we might as well revert back to the 19th century health, safety, and labor standards."
What's ironic is that every historical libertarian/anarchist nation banished capitalism altogether and had superior health, safety and labor standards to our own, without depending on a government agency to provide them with such.
What's ironic is that every historical libertarian/anarchist nation banished capitalism altogether and had superior health, safety and labor standards to our own, without depending on a government agency to provide them with such.
"On average, individual persons and groups do not think much beyond Profits and Losses. If this sort of mentality were to be taken to its logical conclusions, we might as well revert back to the 19th century health, safety, and labor standards"
The funny thing is we have people here on DA who would love that
The funny thing is we have people here on DA who would love that
Not to mention, most of us will bust our knees out if we were to haul loads and work on the field like the 19th century folks.
Of course, if we were to live somewhere in the middle of nowhere with the population density of only 3 per square kilometer, we do not have to worry that much about negative externalities like pollution, though we would be hard-pressed in case of natural disasters. In short, if you want modern conveniences, you need to hang around in places which are more densely populated.
Of course, if we were to live somewhere in the middle of nowhere with the population density of only 3 per square kilometer, we do not have to worry that much about negative externalities like pollution, though we would be hard-pressed in case of natural disasters. In short, if you want modern conveniences, you need to hang around in places which are more densely populated.
If we somehow magically had our situations reverted to 19th century standards, 505 or more of the modern world's population would be dead in three years or less.
Because if you cannot farm, fish, or hunt you're dead and so many people would be hunting that game would go extinct probably.
Because if you cannot farm, fish, or hunt you're dead and so many people would be hunting that game would go extinct probably.
The sudden culture shock will make even the denizens of the affluent countries to become indistinguishable from broken societies found in war-torn parts of Africa. Civil wars along ethnic and clan lines should do a fantastic job in creating further social disruptions, thereby help to raise mortality rates.
View all replies
The ironic part is that externalities are arguably the most relevant aspect of things right now.
But yeah, companies are notoriously short-term thinking, based on my experiences in small businesses over the years.
But yeah, companies are notoriously short-term thinking, based on my experiences in small businesses over the years.
The ideals of Profits & Losses made sense during the early stages of capitalism and industrialization. In short, during the era of rapid expansionism. However, we cannot grow like that any longer in the 21st century. Most of the plate is already full and we can only add so much more. How to allocate and distribute whatever that has filled up the plate is going to become increasingly more important. For example, as a collective, we have achieved the kind of productivity our great grand-dads could only dream of. However, only a small minority of the humanity commands the fruits of unheard of rise in productivity. Finally, since we are not starting out from an empty plate, there is much less room for screwing around.
Eyup.
If the proceeds from the increased productivity were actually distributed fairly, we'd all be better off. Instead most of the people being productive are seeing their end results go to someone else.
Which is then defended by the same people who claim they think everyone should have the right to keep the fruits of their labor. I can't tell whether they're lying or don't realize they're contradicting themselves.
If the proceeds from the increased productivity were actually distributed fairly, we'd all be better off. Instead most of the people being productive are seeing their end results go to someone else.
Which is then defended by the same people who claim they think everyone should have the right to keep the fruits of their labor. I can't tell whether they're lying or don't realize they're contradicting themselves.
I have recently encountered an article that delves into the definition of currency. Basically economic textbooks teach how currency functions, but do not explain its definition (more exactly, how is currency defined). This 'definition' is important for two reasons: a) Currency is a social contract; b) Currency is not 'value-neutral'. The familiar type of currency that we use to pay for goods and services, and to pay taxes is known as 'legal tender'. (Basically, it is backed by the force of law.) In contrast to legal tender, there is private currency in which the parties in agreement accepts it instead of legal tender.
This article made me to think how a system of transaction influences supply and distribution. In other words, economic reforms may involve asking questions like how should we define transactions and their medium of exchange.
Since I am at work at the moment, I will have to dig through my laptop at home to provide you with the link to that article later in the night.
This article made me to think how a system of transaction influences supply and distribution. In other words, economic reforms may involve asking questions like how should we define transactions and their medium of exchange.
Since I am at work at the moment, I will have to dig through my laptop at home to provide you with the link to that article later in the night.
Jeysie, as usual, attacks a strawman, because she's too lazy to address anything more challenging.
Although I will note with interest that the company responsible for most of the lead emissions is one of the two Obama made a special case of saving from the financial ruin created by their own continued inability to produce inexpensive acceptable-quality fuel-efficient vehicles; GM.
Although I will note with interest that the company responsible for most of the lead emissions is one of the two Obama made a special case of saving from the financial ruin created by their own continued inability to produce inexpensive acceptable-quality fuel-efficient vehicles; GM.
"If this sort of mentality were to be taken to its logical conclusions, we might as well revert back to the 19th century health, safety, and labor standards."
Ah, the golden age! How i wish i were there.
Ah, the golden age! How i wish i were there.I do not see much point with regards to committing my time and energy with the Schemer and his/her/its associates.
But without our attention he would cease to be!
Until this article - man, it's been a while since a single article has convinced me so completely of something - I regarded iodine deficiency as the most important social problem in the US. (A deficiency once defeated by adding iodine to table salt, American cutbacks in sodium intake have drastically reduced our iodine intake.)
Iodine deficiency --> hypothyroidism. If this goes unchecked, there are symptoms like memory loss, mood disorders, lack of energy, obesity, and even sensory impairment across the board. Basically, you are not generating the energy you need to live normally. I think the most popular traditional sources of iodine have been sea salt and kelps, but typical American diet lack adequate amount of seafood.
No doubt, the Americans have cut down on salt because of the prevailing medical dogma of high sodium consumption --> high blood pressure. This fixation on sodium is a joke. We need to look into sodium and potassium and magnesium, among other things.
No doubt, the Americans have cut down on salt because of the prevailing medical dogma of high sodium consumption --> high blood pressure. This fixation on sodium is a joke. We need to look into sodium and potassium and magnesium, among other things.
Iodine deficiency during pregnancy also results in cretinism. There's also a very strong correlation between iodine levels during pregnancy and IQ, up to pretty high levels of iodine consumption. (At very high levels, the correlation begins to reverse itself - i/e, at some point an additional unit of iodine results in lower IQ on average, rather than higher, but AFAIK only a couple of Asian countries experience iodine consumption high enough to ever see this effect.)
Alcohol makes you do dumb things but I don't see it going away anytime soon 
Exactly.
Correlation =/= Causality.
I believe I'm supposed to respond with "True, but it nods in a very suggestive manner," or some quip along those lines.