ForumGarden

I wanted to give this it's own thread.

Bryn Mawr;1413409 wrote: So what happened to America between 1988 and 1998?

Whatever it was it had a serious effect on the homicide rates.




This article is astounding. Everyone with pet theories will come out against this, but the science appears to back it up.

New research finds Pb is the hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic. And fixing the problem is a lot cheaper than doing nothing. America's Real Criminal Element: Lead | Mother Jones

Interesting but god forbid it should be conceded that environmentalists might have actually been right about something.

The criminologists don't want to hear about it though.

So now violent criminals can sue Exxon? Gotta love our culture of shunting responsibility. Employers are responsible for our healthcare. The banks are responsible for our financial mismanagement. Guns are responsible for killing. Now gasoline is responsible for our violent tendencies.

The buck may stop somewhere, but it damn well doesn't stop here.

Is not accepting responsibility for one's actions the theme of that piece, in your opinion?

Who said anything about suing Exxon or anyone else for that matter?

Do you not believe the science or doubt the findings?

Some people find it a relief to understand what is in fact going on with them. That knowledge assists not only them gain some sort of control and a way to acknowledge their responsibility but it also allows the medical community to focus on what the real problem is and address it properly.

Not only all that but it offers society hope for future generations that these issues may not be as gene related as we might have thought.

Maybe you're just working yourself up?

Accountable;1415300 wrote: So now violent criminals can sue Exxon? Gotta love our culture of shunting responsibility. Employers are responsible for our healthcare. The banks are responsible for our financial mismanagement. Guns are responsible for killing. Now gasoline is responsible for our violent tendencies.

The buck may stop somewhere, but it damn well doesn't stop here.


You're a product of your environment, you may think ingesting female hormones in your beefburger, breathing in someone else's second hand cigarette smoke or tolerating your neighbour having a machine gun is something you should just accept but that's because you have been conditioned to put up with all sorts of crap without complaining because all is for the best in the best of all countries. Me I'm from Scotland and was born bolshie.

Wonder if there is a correlation between oestrogen in the american beefburger, it's consumption and NRA membership? Could be fun suggesting that to a bunch of gun toting people with no sense of irony.

Does it mention that the same chap who punched the hole in the Ozone layer with his CFCs also designed the leading of gasoline?

If the correlation between reduced IQ, violent crime and airborne vehicle lead does turn out to mark a significant causation, I'll not be even slightly surprised. Someone must have kept regional epidemiological records of lead levels in blood for the population as a whole in the US and UK for the last eighty years.

Ahso!;1415303 wrote: Is not accepting responsibility for one's actions the theme of that piece, in your opinion?It's the theme of our society, in my opinion.

Accountable;1415312 wrote: It's the theme of our society, in my opinion.i can agree with that to an extent, but that should not prevent us from uncovering the evidence so we can better understand and work toward remedying what we can.

There's always the option of not allowing law suits to the industries that, unwittingly or not added to the situation. The main thing for me is understanding because understanding is power.

I think you're looking for an easy fix - a smoking gun, so to speak.

Accountable;1415322 wrote: I think you're looking for an easy fix - a smoking gun, so to speak.Of course, none of this answers the question as to why humans are a violent species as a whole, nor does it provide all the answers, but this does provide a compelling reason showing why that spike in violence we all were discussing in that other thread.

You weren't this upset when we talked about crack being a major factor. I realize that's because you can point to individuals and say: "you shouldn't have done that". I don't know why it's so inconceivable that inhaling or ingesting lead unwittingly is so different. You wouldn't tell a child that it's the child's fault for being in the room when adults were smoking crack. Well, why is it any person's fault for living during a time when lead was used heavily and they became affected by it?

That doesn't mean people can't take responsibility for their actions, it's simply an explanation. If it's true why would you want to deny it?

Be skeptical, that's fine. Just have an open mind.

Ahso!;1415326 wrote: You weren't this upset when we talked about crack being a major factor.
I don't remember the conversation, & couldn't find it in a quick search. Got the link so that I can respond?

Accountable;1415344 wrote: I don't remember the conversation, & couldn't find it in a quick search. Got the link so that I can respond?First post in this thread. Bryn's post that I quoted.

Ahso!;1415352 wrote: First post in this thread. Bryn's post that I quoted.A post or two in the midst of a thread is hardly the same as you starting an entire thread. Stop grasping. Stop justifying. Don't spin. Resist the urge to get the last word. Just move on.

I picture Accountable as Abbott & Ahso as Costello. I don't know who is on first or what is on second. 8-D

I was thinking about this thread this morning as I took the dog for a walk in the cold crisp air.

I'd also shared this article on another forum and the replies were focused on the science and integrity of the piece itself, whereas here, I guess mainly due to the fact that this sort of subject doesn't interest many in this forum, it was cast in more of a political light. I'm grateful for that perspective as much as I am the others.

Here's what I think I'd like to say about that perspective, however.

In a country such as ours where personal integrity is a major factor, mainly due to the constant back and forth of the blame game we see play out so often on our televisions and newspapers as well as our general growing up, it's easy to have that sort of automatic response to issues such as this. it is, after all, our culture and we feeling at least a little responsible as individuals for, i don't know, letting this sort of thing get by us maybe?.

This may, or perhaps even, may not have all occurred because the scientific methodology for investigating and understanding the consequences of lead in our air and food and along with what were safe levels of lead in our blood, and then, of course, the impact those levels might have on an organ as complex as the brain. There's an awful lot there to think about and enough dots to connect that one could see how it might have been purely a mistake. Not that we won't find out differently if and when someone decides to blow the lid off this. And if there is something sinister lurking in the background we should examine that as well, if for no other reason than to make it known that the scientific technology now exists and is accessible to more than just a few in order to catch this in the early stages. That's a good thing, IMPV.

So, if you happen to be one who finds themselves trapped in the political mindset? Permit the emotions to throughly wash over you - settle it within yourself and then perhaps revisit the issue with a perspective that is less accusatory and more objective.

This subject is far too important in many ways to the general public to simply dismiss it out of hand. The people who worked on this article devoted serious time and effort to getting all the facts sorted and published.

The science is good and the effects of lead have been known about for decades - don;t know about the US but it's a long time in the UK since lead was used on water pipes there was a massive campaign undertaken to get them all removed back in the days when it was still nationalised industry. It's a peculiarly American thing that the notion an environmental issue like lead in petrol or carcinogens in food is party political and the evidence must automatically be suspect. Mind you the US is the only place where I have seen it suggested, seriously, that concern about the environment we live in is a new age pagan religion where nature is worshipped. Admittedly I was watching the god channel and was falling off my chair laughing until I realised it wasn't intended as satire. You don;t seem to have rational debate about these kind of issues.

Accountable;1415300 wrote: So now violent criminals can sue Exxon? Gotta love our culture of shunting responsibility. Employers are responsible for our healthcare. The banks are responsible for our financial mismanagement. Guns are responsible for killing. Now gasoline is responsible for our violent tendencies.

The buck may stop somewhere, but it damn well doesn't stop here.


In order for the violent criminals to be able to sue Exxon they must, surely, prove that Exxon were aware that their activities could have that effect - much in the same way as smokers had to prove that the tobacco companies should, reasonably, have been aware of the cancer link.

It's not buck stops here, more a warning for the future if further research proves it to be correct.

My first reaction at the beginning of the article was "if the is true then show the same effect in other countries" but it appears that they have done that.

My reaction at the end of the article was "linking higher lead pollution to poorer neighbourhoods brings doubt as to the cause of the effect".

Whichever, it needs further research.

An update.

This is fairly preliminary data, but Rick Nevin reports that if current trends keep up, we'll end 2013 with the murder rate in America at its lowest rate in over a century.

Analytically speaking, murder is an especially interesting crime because we have pretty good homicide statistics going all the way back to 1900. Most other crimes have only been tracked since about 1960. And if you look at the murder rate in the chart below (the red line), you see that it follows an odd double-hump pattern: rising in the first third of the century, reaching a peak around 1930; then declining until about 1960; then rising again, reaching a second peak around 1990. It's been dropping ever since then.


The US Murder Rate Is on Track to Be Lowest in a Century | Mother Jones

gmc;1415406 wrote: The science is good and the effects of lead have been known about for decades - don;t know about the US but it's a long time in the UK since lead was used on water pipes there was a massive campaign undertaken to get them all removed back in the days when it was still nationalised industry. It's a peculiarly American thing that the notion an environmental issue like lead in petrol or carcinogens in food is party political and the evidence must automatically be suspect. Mind you the US is the only place where I have seen it suggested, seriously, that concern about the environment we live in is a new age pagan religion where nature is worshipped. Admittedly I was watching the god channel and was falling off my chair laughing until I realised it wasn't intended as satire. You don;t seem to have rational debate about these kind of issues.


We do try to have those debates, but the lunatics on both sides end up coming to blows and we have to break it up.

There are some level heads making progress, but we have a long way to go.

Freedom of speech works both ways, you know.

I have friends who seem very intelligent until you get them talking about something like climate change or guns, or fossil fuels, or the economy, or,..., well you get the picture.

Ahso!;1427774 wrote: An update.



The US Murder Rate Is on Track to Be Lowest in a Century | Mother Jones


As I said in my earlier post, showing that this relationship holds in countries other than the US is key to proving a direct corelation.

A link in a single country could be a conjoined effect from a separate social cause, links in multiple countries are far less likely to be.