Comment by joe_the_user | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joe_the_user | Hacker News Reader

Blaming lead for the increase in crime certainly has an appeal. Any claim like that is going to be controversial - pinning causes and effect this closely is a bit like large-scale anecdotal evidence - you're never going to repeat the multitude of causes and effects to went into the twenty years from 1980 to 2000.

A different approach I find compelling involves those who look at different time scales. Especially, violent crime has been declining since colonial times in the US and around the globe - with specific exceptions. While the overall downward trend needs explanation, any moment where crime is declining is normal and the moments of upturn seem to be what needs explanation. And the explanation here is often the aftermath of war, soldiers who've learned to kill coming home.

Of course this isn't to claim lead pollution is in any way acceptable but whether it lead to violent crime is a fuzzy question.

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-...

The evidence is very good.

Lead level in blood is connected to crime in in state level inside the US and other countries. Different states and different countries had differentl levels of exposure and they stopped using leaded gas at different times.

There is also direct evidence of neurotoxicity of lead.

Crucially here there are even countries that phased out lead at different times in different areas and saw geographically corresponding changes in crime rates. The evidence for lead:crime is phenomenal.

It might also be that whatever social change that causes these places to phase out lead also results in lower crime over time?

Yeah like better plumbing = less frustrated people = less crime. Hmmmmmm

Replacing lead supply lines with galvanized pipe (or PEX/(C)PVC/Copper) doesn't really improve water service except for the fact that it doesn't taint the water with lead.

Years ago I had lead pipes replaced in the building where I lived. Zero difference... except for the fact that I'd actually drink tap water.

How do you not consider drinkable tap water to be a huge deal?

I had an apartment with lead pipes and couldn't drink raw tap water.

Surprisingly, it's not really a huge deal.

I’m assuming you’re employed? Not everyone will have a brita filter or the inclination to pay out their ass for bottled water.

EDIT: I don't mean to be a dick or even argue, I'm just pointing out that these problems do affect people, just maybe not most people through an effective combination of factors that reduces risk (where you live, whether you can afford a filter, etc). I certainly grew up on tap water and I am mildly disturbed people are ok with it causing massive mental health issues.

EDIT 2: Finally, I don't filter water I cook with; I imagine lead would still be a problem there. I probably should filter that water too in Oakland....

I always wonder if these "toxins in the tap water are tolerable" people ever eat at restaurants. Do they know where the water used to prepare food and make coffee and tea comes from?

The tap water is drinkable, you just wouldn't want it to be your primary source of drinking water.

Anyway, growing up middle class in the 80s and 90s, we had a filtered water spout on our sink. If you weren't poor, they were fairly common. Once lead was removed from the supply lines, we still continued to use them since it also stripped out chlorine etc.

My point is, work-arounds for leaded drinking water weren't impactful enough to cause crime themselves.

If you want to attribute a drastic decline in violent crime to drinking glasses filling slightly faster you're going to need some extraordinary evidence.

> My point is, work-arounds for leaded drinking water weren't impactful enough to cause crime themselves.

Ahh, I see your point. Places with high amounts of lead also have high numbers of old buildings predating lead paint laws, industrial runoff and/or dumping, and many other sources--see Fruitvale.

(this was a joke by the way)

Yes, but that would be more amazing than lead exposure explanation.

There certainly are other factors, but lead exposure seem like the strongest.

it's likely a society that has reached the point where it has the economic means & political will to replace lead pipes is also improving schools / etc at that point

Yes, but that [changes in lead usage being correlated with socio-economic factors] would be more amazing than lead exposure explanation.

Not really, infrastructure changes of various sorts are often correlated with socio-economic factors. There's a reason Flint, MI's water system was wantonly destroyed and not that of a wealth Connecticut Suburb.

Anyway, there are still researchers doubting whether lead was the primary cause of the 80s-2000s rise and decline of violence. Just googling, see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829390/

But the main thing is single causes are hard in complex things like human society.

>And the explanation here is often the aftermath of war, soldiers who've learned to kill coming home.

I don't think the stats bear that out. Veterans may suffer PTSD and other ailments, but I don't think they contribute disproportionally to US crime statistics.

Brazil hasn't been at war recently, but they have high crime rate.

> Brazil hasn't been at war recently

I wonder if drug trafficking and the global drug war counts? I mean it's in some ways even more violent, but I guess then I'm mixing up cause and effect... interesting to think about.

Violence begets violence?

They do commit more crimes then average population. And some of that is due to untreated PTSD and due to too little help in adjusting to civilian life.

How many of those are theft or violence with victims, and how many of those are more like drug/alcohol infractions, or "disorderly conduct" caused by untreated mental health problems?

Afaik, there is more violence too. Yes, often caused by untreated mental health problems. Also more suicides. Combat situation tends to make mental health problems bigger in pretty much any aspect. It is not exactly easy or healthy situation to be in.

Veterans also face negative stereotypes which does not help anything either. Pro veteran groups tend to talk about all those openly, as they want to get more help to veterans before it all happens.

What are the negative stereotypes of ex service personnel?

I wouldn't exactly say I have my thumb on the pulse of Australia, but I don't seem to observe a negative stereotype for ex service personnel here.

I have personally seen prospects designed to combat negative stereotypes of veterans in American government office (employment office - don't recall exact name). The primary goal seemed to be to make employers more likely to hire them.

>And the explanation here is often the aftermath of war, soldiers who've learned to kill coming home.

If this is true, then why was the end of the largest war in human history associated with a period of historically low violence in the US?

Largest or deadliest (by individuals)?

I assume soldiers come home in waves.

I've read interesting comparisons between veteran experiences after WWII and the Vietnam War. In the case of the former, the nation was relatively united, and the draft was quite universal. The cohort effect was very strong, and integration back into society was relatively automatic.

Also consider that the US forces did not get the worst of the war in global terms. Plus, the relationship between the occupying forces and civilians was totally different for WWII / Vietnam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com