Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
82. But most Americans did NOT use cars till bout 1954
Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:58 AM
Jan 2013

And most of that increase was post WWII. In urban areas most people walked or took the Streetcar till after WWII. Rural areas embraced the car in the 1920s, but that is AFTER more Americans lived in Urban areas then in Rural Areas. My point is the point if importance is the massive adoption of Automobiles in the Post WWII era and with that massive adoption the vast increase in lead in the atmosphere starting about 1946.

Please note, Automobile use actually increased in the 1930s but that also so how few cars were in use compared to today.

Today the US has 765 Motor vehicles per 1000 people.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tra_mot_veh-transportation-motor-vehicles

Through the US is only the fifth highest per 1000 people, if we restrict the numbers to cars:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/its-official-western-europeans-have-more-cars-per-person-than-americans/261108/

There is some confusion over the numbers, the Author of the second report claims his use of cars includes "cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and minibuses" but NOT commercial trucks. The problem is almost every state do NOT separate vehicles that way, most have "Cars", "Station Wagons" and "Trucks". In my home state of Pennsylvania a 3/4 ton Suburban is a "Station Wagon", while Subaru outback (1/3 of the size of the Suburban) as a "Truck" just like any other Truck, including 10-20 ton Dump Trucks. Thus I suspect his numbers include "Car" and "Station wagons" including SUVs and Mini-Vans, but NOT Pickups or anything with an open bed, no matter how small or how they are used. Please note my state also classifies truck by hauling capacity, but it starts at 1, for something like the Subaru, 2 for something like a Dodge Dakota, 3 for 1/2 ton trucks, 4 for 3/4 ton trucks etc. If he used that standard, then what was his cut off? If it was at 2 or above, he would have missed almost all of the pickups that people use as personal cars.

Also note, the HUMMER was so heavy, it was classified as a One Ton Truck and thus treated as if it was a Commercial bus by the Federal Government. The Federal Government uses weight alone it is determination (Thus the treatment of the Hummer) but then do you call a 1/2 ton truck a commercial truck if it is a "Pickup"? I suspect the author is using state data for the Federal Government is only concerned about new vehicles (and then for safety and pollution control reasons only). Given he is using only state numbers, he missed almost all pickups and given a lot of pickups are on the road and used for personal transportation his numbers are low.

Here is the number of Motor Vehicles per 1000 people in the US in various years since 1900, the US only broke 1 for 1000 Americans about 1906, within four years you had a 500% increase (1906-1910), in another 10 years (1910-1920) you saw a 160% increase (Small base getting larger, typical of a new product). Then the increase goes to 300% increase between 1920 and 1930, then a barely increased during the Great Depression, deceased during WWII to just above the level of ownership in 1930, then just a 68% increase from 1945 to 1950, then a 78% increase in the 1950s, 75% increase in the 1960s (At the end of which Air Pollution laws kicked in and reductions in lead became the rule).

By 1970 we had over one Motor Vehicle for every two people, given that a typical household includes a Husband, a Wife and three children (we are talking 1960s) then you had a car for almost every adult by 1970. This also show that in 1970, which is the almost the end of leaded gas in the US, you had seen a 185% increase in the number of motor vehicles since 1945, 209% since 1930 and 633% increase since 1920 (and over a 54500% increase since 1905). This massive increase in the number of cars from the 1920s onward lead to a subsequent increase in the use of gasoline, and prior to 1974 that was unleaded gasoline.

1900 0.11
1905 0.94
1910 5.07
1920 86.78
1930 217.34
1940 245.63
1945 221.80
1950 323.71
1960 410.37
1970 545.35
1980 710.71
2000 800.30
2007 843.57
2009 828.04
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle#United_States

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It was hypothesized 80 years ago that the fall of the Roman Empire was due to lead plates, goblets leveymg Jan 2013 #1
Proving it, for the current era, is news. truebluegreen Jan 2013 #2
Maybe it is "news" to others who do not already have that information. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #28
Great point! Do me a favor Orrex Jan 2013 #29
I stand corrected. People have known for at least 1900 years that ingesting lead is dangerous leveymg Jan 2013 #72
Thanks--that's a nice summary of the part about general ill health due to lead Orrex Jan 2013 #75
I think too much is being made about this story. I don't view it as news or even as original leveymg Jan 2013 #76
Also lead pipes for water supplies. Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #51
I don't buy it. what is the mechanism through which increased exposure to lead increases HiPointDem Jan 2013 #3
From Wikipedia: Ptah Jan 2013 #4
i remember when similar studies were done in the 70s. there were problems with them then, & HiPointDem Jan 2013 #5
Well, absent any other information, I'll go with Wikiedia's summary. Ptah Jan 2013 #6
here's some information: HiPointDem Jan 2013 #7
How does that information differ from the Wikipedia citation? Ptah Jan 2013 #9
how do you explain the pre-1925 rise in murder and the drop circa 1937-1965? Lead began HiPointDem Jan 2013 #10
Good point. Ptah Jan 2013 #14
The relevant poisoning is on developing brains, not adult brains jeff47 Jan 2013 #32
yes, they line up well for the crime of aggravated assault, in the cities chosen, in the time HiPointDem Jan 2013 #52
Based on your memory. jeff47 Jan 2013 #59
Prohibition ended on 12/5/1933 and professionally manufactured alcohol became more readily available AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #34
'it's possible....' but unlikely to have had such a large effect on murder rates. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #39
Ever heard of a lead pipe? zeemike Jan 2013 #35
yes, i have. presumably they existed 1937-1965 as well. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #37
"adjusted for confounding factors" AllyCat Jan 2013 #38
why should it adjust for *any* causes? it's a graph of the murder rate, period. i'm not shouting HiPointDem Jan 2013 #43
Because there are other sources of lead in the environment, AllyCat Jan 2013 #47
Did they go away between 1937 and 1965? HiPointDem Jan 2013 #48
The rate of people being Killed in Europe in 1946 was a HUGE DROP from from 1944 happyslug Jan 2013 #69
Military deaths/war deaths aren't part of the murder rate statistics. They're part of the general HiPointDem Jan 2013 #98
Lead paint, and the switch from lead pipe water systems after 1900, better reporting happyslug Jan 2013 #62
i'm not convinced by all the ad hoc, maybe this maybe that stuff on lead pipes & lead paint, HiPointDem Jan 2013 #79
Prior to 1935 we had NO national data base for crime happyslug Jan 2013 #83
I already acknowledged the point about national data. But we do have data for a lot of big HiPointDem Jan 2013 #86
Chipping paint in tenement slums? MADem Jan 2013 #103
There was chipping paint in rural homes too. And there was chipping lead paint circa 1910- HiPointDem Jan 2013 #111
Well, a lot of people were very busy for the first five years of the forties... MADem Jan 2013 #113
lead was used for many things KT2000 Jan 2013 #105
Yes, & what was the lead source that declined precipitously in the 1910s-20s such that the murder HiPointDem Jan 2013 #108
that is what I mean KT2000 Jan 2013 #112
industry pr? what industry has a vested interest in lead these days? HiPointDem Jan 2013 #114
Please note: KT2000 Jan 2013 #120
lead is a *proven* toxin, & has *proven* effects on physical & mental development (i.e developmental HiPointDem Jan 2013 #122
Your math is wrong. 1935 plus at least 20 years (more for cumulative effect) is 1955 SharonAnn Jan 2013 #66
lead began being added to fuel about 1925, not 1935. murder rates dropped dramatically ~1937-1965. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #74
But most Americans did NOT use cars till bout 1954 happyslug Jan 2013 #82
200 cars/1000 people in 1930 = 200% increase from 1900, 100% increase from 1920. And car HiPointDem Jan 2013 #87
Purchased of cars were concentrated in the Rural and Suburban areas prior to WWII happyslug Jan 2013 #96
Here's the problem with your analysis. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #97
Hmmm... krispos42 Jan 2013 #88
'Freakanomics" is right-wing garbage, Steve Levitt is a right-wing hack, and this lead theory HiPointDem Jan 2013 #89
The book didn't mention race as a factor, as far as I can recall. krispos42 Jan 2013 #90
The authors absolutely mention it. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #99
I don't doubt it was in the paper they wrote krispos42 Jan 2013 #106
it was in the book too; not directly, but the whole argument turns on differential abortion rates HiPointDem Jan 2013 #107
Gas isn't/wasn't the only delivery mechanism, though--lead paint was an issue too. MADem Jan 2013 #102
No, it wasn't, but none of the other sources you mention disappeared in the teens and 20s, which HiPointDem Jan 2013 #110
Well, in the teens, a lot of potential criminals went off to war. MADem Jan 2013 #115
not really. us ww1 deaths were .13% of its population. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #116
Well, they didn't all have to die--they could come home wounded, or with PTSD, or healthy-- MADem Jan 2013 #117
same could be said of vietnam vets, but it didn't happen. this is all ad hoc rationalizing because HiPointDem Jan 2013 #119
I'll admit I like the lead hypothesis--it seems very logical to me! nt MADem Jan 2013 #121
Not so much...for example, it's pretty well-accepted that lead exposure = decreased IQ. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #123
There has been a drop in violent crime in almost every big city. WCGreen Jan 2013 #8
why would lead just affect violent crime rates? rather than crime generally, i mean. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #11
Because it's specifically violent crime that's linked to lead poisoning? Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #41
lol. i read your link. the theoretical construct cited has to do with impulse control, which isn't HiPointDem Jan 2013 #46
Impulse control, aggression, and low IQ... Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #53
none of which are specific to aggravated assault or violence. but speaking of drugs: HiPointDem Jan 2013 #54
Again... Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #63
...your first link... HiPointDem Jan 2013 #70
That was a drug war, something generally removed when it comes to overall murder rates happyslug Jan 2013 #68
and did the authors of such studies control for effects of 'drug war'? & how is it possible to HiPointDem Jan 2013 #71
Pay the $39 a get the actual report. happyslug Jan 2013 #77
wait, you seem to know all the details, why can't you just explain it? HiPointDem Jan 2013 #78
Because report of violent crime are more reliable then other crimes happyslug Jan 2013 #65
that's a reason we might pay more attention to violent crime stats rather than other crime stats, HiPointDem Jan 2013 #73
around here we used to have many murders, shootings by the foreign gang bangers..then Obama was Sunlei Jan 2013 #56
Except the correlation between eliminating leaded gasoline and declining violent crime... Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #12
I don't believe that just because someone says so in a news report. I can see it doesn't HiPointDem Jan 2013 #15
Except someone didn't just say so in a news report. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #17
but i haven't read those papers, and no one has posted them on DU. they posted news reports. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #19
Except this says precisely what it's claimed to. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #21
as you are the sort of person who thinks name-calling is an acceptable discussion tactic, you HiPointDem Jan 2013 #26
No, I haven't called you any names. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #27
I posted a Wikepedia link that links to that research. Ptah Jan 2013 #22
First yes, if you read the article you would know fasttense Jan 2013 #24
i didn't say incarceration rates always follow violent crimes rates. i posted the stats on incar- HiPointDem Jan 2013 #33
Thank God for the uk/eu news and uk medical reports or Americans would never know what harms them. Sunlei Jan 2013 #55
except most of the research was done in the us & reported in the us as well. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #57
not these days, the corporations have much stronger control and our American news has declined. Sunlei Jan 2013 #58
yeah, that's why outlets like "forbes" are discussing this research (done in the us), because of HiPointDem Jan 2013 #100
You mean biochemically? Recursion Jan 2013 #31
Where are the people in our country getting lead contamination from? Maraya1969 Jan 2013 #13
Soil, paint and coal burning power plants come to mind Fumesucker Jan 2013 #16
Plus, if you read the MJ article, old windows being lowered and raised Hestia Jan 2013 #67
the main way used to be leaded paint & gas. since both were banned, average blood levels of lead HiPointDem Jan 2013 #18
Check the CDC, which keeps stats on lead across 50 states. Their data do correlate high lead ancianita Jan 2013 #20
can you link to one of those pages where these correlations are shown or described? HiPointDem Jan 2013 #36
My mistatement. I meant that their lead measures data are correlated by others with crime. I'm ancianita Jan 2013 #81
and here's some more analysis from a public health researcher: HiPointDem Jan 2013 #101
Thanks. There's data from national to local levels, and it's all helping to make this case. ancianita Jan 2013 #104
you apparently didn't read what i posted. It says two things: most of the data just shows HiPointDem Jan 2013 #109
decades of lead shot,old pipes,soils,dust,silt beds everywhere water runs off. Sunlei Jan 2013 #30
China, in part. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #42
We live in a house that is over 100 years old. AllyCat Jan 2013 #44
Firing ranges. morningfog Jan 2013 #84
Are bullets made out of lead? Maraya1969 Jan 2013 #93
Check this out: morningfog Jan 2013 #94
Most recent Mother Jones: America's Real Criminal Element: Lead Fuddnik Jan 2013 #23
+1 xchrom Jan 2013 #25
perhaps the answer today is the medical treatment with chelators as a routine health care. Sunlei Jan 2013 #40
We asked about chelation treatment for our kids when they had levels AllyCat Jan 2013 #45
That experience must have been very upsetting for you parents! Sunlei Jan 2013 #50
I wonder if lead could also be responsible (partly) dotymed Jan 2013 #49
Weird bit of trivia here dmallind Jan 2013 #60
The threat of lead was sown long ago. Remmah2 Jan 2013 #61
Mercury is very close to lead on the periodic table No Compromise Jan 2013 #64
The real problem is Lead is under Carbon in the table happyslug Jan 2013 #80
Too bad you are already tomb-stoned. Now you'll never know what's silly about that statement. cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #91
Close the firing ranges! morningfog Jan 2013 #85
Shut down the bullet manufacturers! ancianita Jan 2013 #92
I thought that was common knowledge noamnety Jan 2013 #95
It may be "trace" quantities of lead that are responsible jmowreader Jan 2013 #118
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yes, lead poisoning could...»Reply #82