Yes, lead poisoning could really be a cause of violent crime

[HiPointDem]

97. Here's the problem with your analysis.

1. The 70s-90s increase in violent crime was predominantly an urban phenomenon.


2. Though you are correct that vehicles/capita were higher outside urban areas, that has always been the case, & NYC is not unique in that respect. E.g. 1930 v. 1990 vehicles/household:

San Francisco: .87/1.33
Napa County: 1.42/2.19

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/forecast/ao/tab1120.htm#table11

3. However, as you acknowledge, in urban areas vehicle ownership & use is concentrated in a smaller geographic area, which is presumably why urban kids had higher average blood lead than rural kids in the days of leaded gas & presumably the reason the researchers focused their research on big cities, along with the big spike in crime in the cities.


4. Urban vehicles/household, while lower than rural rates, were nevertheless already relatively high by 1930 for two reasons: a) rich people; b) delivery and service vehicles.

In San Francisco, for example, vehicles/household in 1930 were already 76% of the 1970 rate & 65% of the 1990 rate:

1930: autos/total vehicles registered/household = .82/.87
1950: .92/1.04
1970: .98/1.14
1990: 1.08/1.33

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/forecast/ao/tab1120.htm#table11

5. Also, vehicles/household grew at a slower rate in most big cities than in rural-suburban areas circa 1950-1970, supposedly the critical years:

SF: 1.04 to 1.14/household = 9.6% growth

Contra costa county = 1.31 - 1.88/household = 43.5% growth

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/forecast/ao/tab1120.htm#table11

NYC is indeed a uniquely 'car-free' city, as opposed to say Detroit during its heyday. So it's interesting that it was almost synonymous with violent crime during the 70s-90s. It's a curious thing -- but less so if you're aware of the history:

a. The deindustrialization & job loss circa 1950s-1980s
b. The heroin epidemic of the late 60s-70s
c. The 1975 financial crisis and the subsequent deliberate policy of disinvestment & 'planned shrinkage,' which starved black/ghetto areas of funding, services & public & private investment
d. The results of the above, including the abandonment & arson of the south bronx
e. The 1980s crack epidemic, which affected the same areas
f. The public health crisis (AIDS, TB, etc) which affected the same areas

http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Plague_On_Your_Houses.html?id=WqxzT1nM12wC

IMO the reason this lead study is getting hyped is because it 'disappears' the effect of jobs, income & public policy on crime & other social outcomes by attributing urban ills mainly to a environmental toxin.

And that is certainly why some elements in the right-wing press like it:

For here’s the problem. We just had a century of people haranguing us that crime is a product of poverty. And a good 50 years of similar being shouted at that it’s about inequality too. Yet here is this new thesis. That actually crime is a result of the stupidity brought on by environmental poisoning. I’m willing to believe the new thesis: but are those who have been screaming about poverty and inequality willing to do the same?

If lead has been the cause of all that crime then it wasn’t poverty or inequality that caused all that crime, was it?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/08/the-problem-for-the-left-if-tetraethyl-lead-really-does-cause-crime/