Michael
Oct 15th 2009, 11:03 AM
Research Links Lead Exposure, Criminal Activity
... The most compelling information has come from an economist in Fairfax who has argued in a series of little-noticed papers that the "New York miracle" was caused by local and federal efforts decades earlier to reduce lead poisoning.
The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States. It offers a unifying new neurochemical theory for fluctuations in the crime rate, and it is based on studies linking children's exposure to lead with violent behavior later in their lives.
What makes Nevin's work persuasive is that he has shown an identical, decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine countries.
"It is stunning how strong the association is," Nevin said in an interview. "Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these countries was explained by lead."
Through much of the 20th century, lead in U.S. paint and gasoline fumes poisoned toddlers as they put contaminated hands in their mouths. The consequences on crime, Nevin found, occurred when poisoning victims became adolescents. Nevin does not say that lead is the only factor behind crime, but he says it is the biggest factor.
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073_pf.html)
Rudi Guiliani's ego is not the only thing that needs bursting here. I've been reading for years about how lead poisoning and demographic trends alone account for the overwhelming majority of all variations in crime levels. There are virtually ZERO reputable studies that can show that any particular anti-crime policy having achieved any appreciable result.
I consider this issue to be particularly important to public policy because there are few things more damaging to public policy than "conventional wisdom" congealing around wrong assumptions about 'what works'.
... The most compelling information has come from an economist in Fairfax who has argued in a series of little-noticed papers that the "New York miracle" was caused by local and federal efforts decades earlier to reduce lead poisoning.
The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States. It offers a unifying new neurochemical theory for fluctuations in the crime rate, and it is based on studies linking children's exposure to lead with violent behavior later in their lives.
What makes Nevin's work persuasive is that he has shown an identical, decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine countries.
"It is stunning how strong the association is," Nevin said in an interview. "Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these countries was explained by lead."
Through much of the 20th century, lead in U.S. paint and gasoline fumes poisoned toddlers as they put contaminated hands in their mouths. The consequences on crime, Nevin found, occurred when poisoning victims became adolescents. Nevin does not say that lead is the only factor behind crime, but he says it is the biggest factor.
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073_pf.html)
Rudi Guiliani's ego is not the only thing that needs bursting here. I've been reading for years about how lead poisoning and demographic trends alone account for the overwhelming majority of all variations in crime levels. There are virtually ZERO reputable studies that can show that any particular anti-crime policy having achieved any appreciable result.
I consider this issue to be particularly important to public policy because there are few things more damaging to public policy than "conventional wisdom" congealing around wrong assumptions about 'what works'.