This article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073_pf.html) from the Post discusses an intriguing theory:...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."This theory meshes with toxicological studies of the effects of lead on development and behavior.

Nevin's work has been published mainly in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research. Within the field of neurotoxicology, Nevin's findings are unsurprising, said Ellen Silbergeld, professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Johns+Hopkins+University?tid=informline) and the editor of Environmental Research.

"There is a strong literature on lead and sociopathic behavior among adolescents and young adults with a previous history of lead exposure," she said.It's worth reading the whole article. Note, too, that "safe" levels of lead still have a considerable effect (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/325447851.html?dids=325447851:325447851&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+17%2C+2003&author=Thomas+H.+Maugh+II&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=THE+NATION):

Blood levels of lead below current federal and international guidelines of 10 micrograms per deciliter produce a surprisingly large drop in IQ of up to 7.4 points, a U.S. team reports in today's New England Journal of Medicine. Researchers estimate that one in every 50 U.S. children has lead levels above that guideline and that one in every 10 has levels of 5 micrograms/deciliter or above -- well within the dangerous range.

After studies in the 1980s and 1990s revealed that lower levels still damaged children's ability to think, concentrate and hear, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continued to reduce the allowable level -- to 30 mcg/dl in 1975, 25 mcg/dl in 1985 and to the current level of 10 mcg/dl in 1991. The last figure corresponds to about 100 parts per billion. In 1976, when lead was removed from gasoline, the average lead level in children was about 15 mcg/dl.

They found that a rise in lead levels from 1 mcg/dl to 10 was associated with a 7.4-point drop in IQ. An increase in lead levels from 10 to 30 mcg/dl was associated with an additional drop of only about two to three points, in line with previous studies.7.4 points is quite a lot, especially when dealing with the lower end of the IQ spectrum. The article goes on to state that "..."lead abatement in old houses would cost about $32 billion, but would bring benefits in such areas as special education of more than $60 billion." Might not be a bad investment if the numbers bear out.

If that is true then China must have some serious criminals. What with their lead based paint on Thomas the Train and all.

I don't know, I guess I am growing disgusted with what seems like everything that happens in our society someone tries to explain away with some excuse like....he killed his wife b/c of 'roids. Or he molested that child b/c he was molested. Now it's criminals are criminals b/c of lead?

I grew up around lead, I probably still have lead from a #2 pencil imbedded in my arm from fights and horsing around with my friends and brothers.

I do not disagree that some people have chemical embalances in their brains that can cause them to do irrational things I do not disagree that some of those embalances could be the result of their physical environment. However, it frustrates me when behavior can be excused away b/c of their circumstance.

My old Science teacher used to joke that no one really knows what causes Cancer but that he felt water could not be proven or disproven as a carcinogen. He was of the opinion and I am too that one can very nearly find any number of things in the envrionment that can be blamed as a cause for various ailments.

I don't think the article was looking to excuse criminal behavior so much as point out that further reduction of lead in the environment would be a good thing. While our justice system sometimes makes allowances for troubled childhoods and such when determining sentences, I don't know that "early exposure to lead" plays much of a role in that sort of thing.

I think it best to worry less about possible claims that lead "did something" to make person X a criminal, and worry more about just getting rid of the lead.

Levitt had some interesting points about this today: http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2007/07/09/lead-and-crime/

http://www.unrv.com/economy/lead.php

In 14 B.C., the Roman architect Vitruvius noted pale complexions and other maladies in lead workers. His book De Architectura referred to the dangers of the metal in the water system, "the lead receives the current of air, the fumes from it occupy the members of the body, and burning them thereupon, rob the limbs of the virtues of the blood. Therefore, it seems that water should not be brought in lead pipes if we desire it to be wholesome."

I can definitely agree we should get rid of it. I just hope that we don't see it used as an excuse for criminal behavior.

Meh, I looked at the Freakonomics blog to see if they'd covered it, but missed the article. The full article, not very long, that akipt links to is nifty. Too many gods, not enough common sense.

Less lead would definitely be a good thing.

Poor people are more likely to have diabetes. To the lay person, this would seem absurd. From a wholly scientific standpoint, it is absurd. In order to understand this, you have to take into account the socioeconomics behind the situation. I wonder if the same sort of phenomenon is not present here? If I suddenly went broke, would I contract diabetes? No.

This would be much more impressive if they would provide data on who exactly is exposed to lead long term. The sheer amount of possible discrete variables here really detracts from the validity of these findings.

And while I know that Thor was not using this article to condone or mitigate criminal behavior, I think that that is where the bulk of research concerning subjects like this lead to. We have already seen it with substance abuse and addiction and mental disorders. Whether you believe in these phenomenon or not, they were created within the last 100 years. At first they were used to criminalize, now they are often used to negate responsibility.

Without going into a debate over the labels 'good' and 'bad', I do believe that some people are simply good and some are not. I cannot believe that if I were exposed to lead that I would engage in sociopathic behavior. I have a paper right in front of me telling me that my marijuana use should have me using much harder drugs. I don't.

One of the more annoying traits of the scientific community is to link a group of people based off on one trait they consider defining, thus rendering them as a homogenous population for their research. "Drug users" "Alcoholics" "Depressed people" "Homosexuals"

Not every drunk, addict, gay, or depressed person is the same. Yet, it is the modus operandi of our government and medical community to label them as such. Employers do not want people who have been convicted of drug or alcoholc offenses. What happens when 'excessive exposure to lead' becomes reason for denial of employment, due to the supposed probability of violence?

/incoming lawsuit. Employer held as an accessory to murder via one of his employees due to overwhelming exposure to lead, which precipitated the act.

Sounds goofy? Again, look at the Benoit case. Who are they talking about now?

I think you're conflating government/private employer reactions to scientific findings and the science itself. Science deals in probabilities. Marijuana use has a probability of leading to the use of other drugs. That people fall outside those probabilities is expected. The studies are very much worth persuing regardless of how some might interpret the results (note akipt's link for what results when observations are ignored). The goal isn't to reduce the sentences of brain-damaged criminals, but to reduce the occurrence of brain-damaged criminals.
This would be much more impressive if they would provide data on who exactly is exposed to lead long term. The sheer amount of possible discrete variables here really detracts from the validity of these findings. Taking into account the variables seems to add to the findings' validity. Also, it fits in well with what is already known about exposure to lead. Remember, we're reading a new article summarizing the research, not the research itself.
One of the more annoying traits of the scientific community is to link a group of people based off on one trait they consider defining, thus rendering them as a homogenous population for their research. "Drug users" "Alcoholics" "Depressed people" "Homosexuals"This "trait" is quite important, so as to decrease noise in data sets, leading to greater probabilities of the results being correct. The problem has more to do with general scientific illiteracy, or the use of results to illustrate things that the results don't, in fact, illustrate.

#2 pencils don't contain lead. The "lead" is mostly graphite.

#2 pencils don't contain lead. The "lead" is mostly graphite.

Was that true 25 years ago?

It was always graphite. Chemists back in the 1600s thought graphite was a form of lead, but they were incorrect.

damn so then I have graphite in me and not lead :( i was hoping to explain away my moments of insanity.

Blame it on the mercury in your fillings (if you have any). :)

Oh god, don't get me started on mercury :). In the winter of 1979, when I was sixteen, I filched a small (~1 ml) volume of elemental mercury from our school chemistry lab and smuggled it home in a test tube, which shortly thereafter broke in my jewelry box, coating all the items in there and appearing to 'disappear' in short order. I had told no-one about it, but that spring went through a depressive crisis, flunked all of my classes, and my younger sister, who also slept upstairs with me, also exhibited a range of behavior problems. At the time, I attributed it to my inability to adjust to the culture shock of moving from California to Texas, as well as my innate hypersensitive nature; but by random chance last year actually did some reading on mercury poisoning and found out that while the contact or ingestion hazard is minimal, CNS (central nervous system) effects due to exposure to mercury *vapors* are both insidious and cumulative (and that I had, at the time, displayed many of the characteristic symptoms, including a tremor); and I *still* had that jewelry box, sitting in my bathroom, 27 years later. Horrified, I double-bagged it in Ziplocs, although it must have long ago diffused to negligible concentration, and sickened with guilt, wondered if I should call my mother and apologize to her for the damage I'd done to Becky and my lives both (Becky still struggles with bipolar disorder and substance abuse, although I think the latter comes from my father's side). Finally, I did decide to call and tell her, and she told me that she had both known about it, and removed the broken tube from the box, although neither of us knew much about the other specific hazards at the time (you're often told not to *touch* mercury, which is actually only a slight hazard).

Fortunately, thermometers, and even most health care facilities and chemistry labs don't have much of the stuff around any more (too bad we can't say the same for our seafood ;) ), but if you should ever spill the stuff, take the cleanup seriously, folks.

Regards,
Nydia

I saw this article this morning too, and thought it interesting. I also see some evidence of the correlation, from my experience working in Corrections, 25 years ago.

While my contribution is in no way scientific, I can say that the majority of the prison population I came into contact with were either from Urban centers or old farming communities, both of which would have structures that most likely used lead-based paint at one time.

No, this should in no way excuse anyone from having made criminal decisons. It does, though, offer more rationale to eliminate lead as best we can from those places where our children are growing up, and being exposed.