What pollutants could nations tamp down on to reduce crime?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Kevin Drum had an interesting article awhile back showing the decrease of violent crime with the decrease in lead emissions. And while I'm not a biologist or anything, given Obama's new mercury regulations, another neurotoxins, it seems to me that this will cause a further reduction in U.S. crime.

So this just brings up the interesting thought: what other toxins released to the environment directly or indirectly cause crime? And if we had a good list of them, why couldn't the environmental movement frame their arguments in terms of decreasing brain damage and thus reducing crime and boosting the economy?

[RobbyPants]

People can frame up pretty good arguments for increasing education to reduce crime, but that doesn't stop Republicans from cutting funding for education like there's no tomorrow.

[tzor]

Kevin Drum had an interesting article awhile back showing the decrease of violent crime with the decrease in lead emissions. And while I'm not a biologist or anything, given Obama's new mercury regulations, another neurotoxins, it seems to me that this will cause a further reduction in U.S. crime.

So this just brings up the interesting thought: what other toxins released to the environment directly or indirectly cause crime? And if we had a good list of them, why couldn't the environmental movement frame their arguments in terms of decreasing brain damage and thus reducing crime and boosting the economy?

Yes, but recall that the major source of lead emissions were automobiles. These tended to be concentrated in urban areas where the the people are likewise concentrated. That's a major factor, a pollutant that is disbursed in the atmosphere in general is far less toxic than a polution that can and often is trapped in a small location based on a local thermal inversion.

Mercury emissions still comes from coal fired plants and is already being partially scrubbed.

I think the key would be to look at all pollutants that concentrate in urban areas and work on them. I think ozone is still a major urban problem and one of the reasons why I think that there is a good reason for electric cars for urban areas (even if they do get their power from recharging at night when only those mercury emitting coal plants are up and running).

[fectin]

Basically anything that changed in the past 50 years correlates to decreased crime. In this case though it's worse than that; you're specifically finding a correlation between newer cars and decreased crime. I am unimpressed with a study finding that new cars and violent crimes are inversely covariant.

More generally though, it'll be the opposite effect: pollution controls drive up costs, which drives down employment, which drives up violent crime.

[tzor]

But on the other hand we are talking about lead, and that's a very nasty pollutant indeed. Consider the glory of Rome. While it was true that the water pipes were lead general lead transferral into drinking water is exceptionally small. Imported wine, on the other hand was shipped in lead glaxed amptoras and the acidity in wine was more effective in transferring lead into the liquid. This is the most popular explanation for why the upper classes of Rome eventually started going bonkers. (The actual reason may never be known because Romans were big on the cremation thing.)

The biggest thing with lead was lead in paint, whcih would start to flake off and then be eaten (kids eat the darndest things) by babies in these city apparments. This resulted in sigificant brain damage and learning problems which is one way to get into the violent gang culture. Having this lead in the atmosphere especially in areas where air can stagnate and then taken directly into the lungs cannot be a good thing whatsoever.

But it's the last point that is the key. Such urban areas where air can stagnate is always prone to significant problems. In previous centuries this would be germs and disease (aided by mosquito borne illnesses). It is one of the reasons why in the 18th century a lot of people would leave the cities during the summer. It sort of adds to the story of the United States that the Continental Congress continued to meet in the very dangerous (disease in summer wise) city of Philidelphia) to work out the details of the revolution.

[DSMatticus]

pollution controls drive up costs, which drives down employment

Ahem. It is not a universally true statement that things costing more to produce means less employment. That is only true if production is at some sort of resource limit and the cost of implementing pollution controls requires the deallocation of resources elsewhere, and the cut area loses more jobs than the implementation of pollution controls creates. If production is not at a resource limit, then the cost of implementing pollution controls is pure job creation at the expense of business profit (which doesn't correlate with employment at all, so who cares?).

But yeah, when I read Lago's pollutant thing I was kinda like, "wtf?" The correlation in this case is most likely not causative, and even then the article talks about lead specifically and you can't reliably extrapolate from single pollutant to all pollutants. Seemed really... weird.

[fectin]

pollution controls drive up costs, which drives down employment

Ahem. It is not a universally true statement that things costing more to produce means less employment.

Yes it is. Whether you call it internalizing an externality or government imposing an externality, it drives down production as compared to that not happening. The only exception I can think of is a perfectly elastic market, which doesn't exist.
Driving down production drives down employment.

It's likely to be a fairly trivial effect in many/most cases though.

[DSMatticus]

Fectin, when a company has to internalize an externality they produce less of that item numerically because the cost of production per item has gone up. The increase in cost of production is not because they are setting money on fire; it is representing the need to hire more workers or buy more shit (stimulating demand elsewhere). If implementing pollution controls is more labor intensive than production, it can actually increase employment as you shift money from production to pollution controls.

Extreme fictional example: we have an entire manufacturing plant ran by robotic equipment. There are no humans working in the entire plant. After a string of robotic revolts, the government imposes regulations that require one human sit next to a master power switch all day, ready to shut the plant down incase of uppity robots.

Yeah, it's a ridiculous example, but the point in this case is that accounting for the externality is more labor intensive than production; as long as the externality does not cost so much that it shuts the entire plant down, moving money from production to externality compensation is employment gold.

But it's even more than that, because the decrease in demand is not 1:1 with the increase in costs. You can end up with scenarios where accounting for the externality raises the net value of production even though the raw volume of production is less because the increase in the value of each individual unit makes up for the lost number of units. So you can say superficial statements like "last year, we produced 10 tons of X. This year, we produced 9. Production is down." But at the same time that that statement is true, the statement, "last year, we produced 10 million dollars worth of X. This year, we produced 11 million dollars worth," could also be true, and you could interpret that production is up. The extra 1 million dollars is representing the production of a 'better environment,' which is a totally valid way to look at the situation.

[RiotGearEpsilon]

Yeah, it's a ridiculous example, but the point in this case is that accounting for the externality is more labor intensive than production; as long as the externality does not cost so much that it shuts the entire plant down, moving money from production to externality compensation is employment gold.

It's an extremely ridiculous example. Most externalities can't really be stopped with labor, they require capital. You can't hire middle class labor to pluck mercury particulates out of a coal-burning power plant, you need expensive filters for that. Same goes for all other forms of chemical pollutant. Noise pollution? Expensive capital.

Now, this will create SOME jobs, in the form of the people running the factory that create these externality-muffling devices, but generally speaking, tamping down externalities is something you use robots for.

[DSMatticus]

in the form of the people running the factory that create these externality-muffling devices

That's kind of the point. Money is being shifted from your production to whatever part of the economy covers your externalities; the net effect on employment is the jobs your demand for externality coverage creates minus the jobs you lose due to your dropped demand. It is absolutely not sufficient to say, "you're covering an externality you weren't before, so net employment goes down." You need to additionally show that the production decrease cost more jobs than covering the externality created.

But more interestingly; it's still not a 1:1 correspondence. Every dollar of externality coverage is not necessarily a dollar out of production. Businesses are still setting prices based on what is expected to create optimal profits based on profit per good and demand, and if demand drops fast enough to increasing prices, at least partial coverage of the externality will come out of net profits instead of production. And the profitability of businesses just does not correlate with employment at all, so moving money from corporate profit to almost anywhere else is pretty likely to be an improvement in terms of creating jobs.

[LargePrime]

Fox News.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, it looks like Rick Nevin's hypothesis by way of Kevin Drum is slowly catching fire in the blogopshere, or at least the parts I frequent, so I guess that I will revive this thread.

In this case though it's worse than that; you're specifically finding a correlation between newer cars and decreased crime. I am unimpressed with a study finding that new cars and violent crimes are inversely covariant.

Lead is a neurotoxin, though.

Let me just post a link.
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36569/1/ ... _36569.pdf

Lead Poisoning and The Bell Curve (Ed: Yes, that Bell Curve. Keep reading, though)

Based on a comparison of NLSY data for white and black youths, Herrnstein and Murray argued that racial differences in academic attainment and undesirable behavior prevalence can be largely explained by racial differences in IQ. The authors did concede that a relationship between inherited IQ and crime could not explain changes in national crime rates over time.

Since the 1994 publication of The Bell Curve, juvenile offending, unwed teen pregnancy, and dropout rates have all plummeted, with the most dramatic declines recorded by black youths. In response to controversy over The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) prepared a report on Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. (Neisser et al., 1996) This report states that IQ is positively correlated with education attainment (years of schooling) and achievement test scores (curriculum knowledge). Other research confirms that low IQ is associated with increased risk of impulsive and criminal behavior. (Moffitt, 1993)

The APA report briefly notes that lead exposure has “well-established negative effects on intelligence”. Nevin (2000; 2007; 2009) has shown that lead exposure trends explain most of the variation across many decades in USA mental retardation prevalence, unwed pregnancy rates, Scholastic Achievement Test scores, and violent and property crime rate trends in the USA, Canada, Britain, France, Finland, Italy, West Germany, Australia, and New Zealand. An analysis of lead in tooth enamel formed in early childhood also shows that USA urban lead exposure peaked around the mid-point of the 1979 NLSY birth years. (Robbins et al. 2010)

[Chamomile]

We don't have anywhere near enough evidence to believe that all neurotoxins will necessarily cause an increase in violent crime even if we had the evidence to suggest that lead caused increases in violent crime, which we don't, because all we know is that both lead pollution and violent crime decreased over the past 50 years. The national debt also grew over the last 50 years. Does growing the national debt somehow decrease lead pollution?

[Lago PARANOIA]

even if we had the evidence to suggest that lead caused increases in violent crime, which we don't, because all we know is that both lead pollution and violent crime decreased over the past 50 years.

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36569/1/ ... _36569.pdf

• The Biological Plausibility of lead-induced cognitive and neurobehavioral impairment is established by neurochemical, subcellular, and cellular effects of lead exposure in animal and human studies.
• The Strength of the relationship between lead exposure trends and trends in Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) scores, mental retardation (MR), and unwed pregnancy and crime is evident in the statistical significance of lead exposure in regression analyses and in the very high percent of variation in education and behavior trends explained by lead exposure. [...] International blood lead trends explain: 63% to 93% of variation in index crime rates (violent plus property crime) over several decades in every one of nine nations examined; 91% to 93% of variation in aggravated assault rates in the USA and Britain; 84% to 90% of variation in rape rates in the USA and Britain; 70% to 89% of variation in robbery rates in the USA, Britain, Canada, West Germany, New Zealand, and Australia; and 65% to 91% of variation in burglary rates in the USA, Britain, Canada, Australia, West Germany, New Zealand, and France.
• The Consistency of the relationship between lead exposure and crime trends within each nation explains otherwise bewildering divergences in crime rates across nations over time. In 1980, the USA index crime rate was 22% higher than the rate in France and 40% higher than Australia’s rate, but the 2001 USA index crime rate was 39% below the French rate and 45% below Australia’s rate. Canada’s index crime rate was 60% higher than the rate in Britain in the early-1970s, but 20% lower in 2001. [...] Crime in the USA and Canada rose and fell earlier than in other nations because gasoline lead exposure rose and fell earlier in the USA and Canada.
• Temporal Precedence requires, at a minimum, that a suspected cause precede the effect. The statistical best-fit time lags that relate lead exposure and societal trends present especially compelling evidence, linking every outcome to neurodevelopment in the first year of life: A 12-year time lag for ages 6-18 mental retardation; A 17-year lag for SAT scores; A 15-year lag for under-age-15 pregnancy; A 17-year lag for age 15-17 unwed pregnancy; An 18-year lag for burglary; A 23-year lag for violent crime; A 19-year lag for overall index crimes that are about 90% property crimes and 10% violent crimes. Temporal Precedence is also evident in peak MR prevalence shifting to older students (Figure 4), peak arrest rates shifting to older offenders, and peak age-specific unwed birth and abortion rates shifting to older women, as the years of peak preschool lead exposure recede into the past.
• With respect to Experimental Evidence, Bradford Hill states that “the strongest support for the causation hypothesis may be revealed” when preventive action is taken and it does in fact prevent. Regulatory actions to phase out leaded gasoline and reduce lead paint hazards anticipated societal benefits from education attainment gains associated with higher IQ. That promise has been fulfilled by large gains in high school completion and college enrollment rates associated with birth years of declining preschool lead exposure, after decades devoid of national academic attainment progress across birth years of gasoline lead exposure. National blood lead trends also continue to forecast trends in USA teenage pregnancy and international crime rates with remarkable accuracy (Figures 5 and 6).
• A Dose-Response relationship between preschool blood lead and IQ later in life is clearly established. Temporal analyses show a corresponding population-dose-response relationship between preschool blood lead trends and population MR prevalence, crime, and unwed teen pregnancy rates. Average USA preschool blood lead rose by almost 500% from the 1930s through the 1960s. MR prevalence then rose by 500% with a 12-year lag; age-15-17 unwed teen pregnancy rates rose by 500% with a 17-year lag; the Index crime rate rose by 500% with a 19-year lag; and the violent crime rate rose by 500% with a 23-year lag.
• The Specificity indicator of causation might seem to be lacking in light of the diverse societal impacts of preschool lead exposure, but rising MR prevalence, falling SAT scores, stagnant or falling education attainment, and rising crime and unwed teen pregnancy rates are all manifestations of the same specific outcome of lead-induced neurodevelopmental damage.
• With respect to Coherence, Bradford Hill states that a causal interpretation “should not seriously conflict with the generally known facts of the natural history and biology of the disease”. This principle is inadequately addressed by The Bell Curve interpretation of NLSY data, concluding that inherited IQ is an important causal factor in criminal offending, when that interpretation is not coherent with national crime trends. Ironically, evidence that lead exposure affects so many interrelated societal trends can incite disbelief that any one factor could cause so many effects, but that coherence is evidence of causation.

You're going to actually have to click on the links in the pdf to see the graphs, since the axes are actual text while the graphs are images. I suppose I could just screenshot the entire thing and upload them onto imgur, but, ehn, effort.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So if it is shown that lead poisoning is a neurotoxin that inhibits IQ and causes poor impulse control, why should we believe that there's something special about lead as opposed to chemical neurotoxins in general?

[Lago PARANOIA]

http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/The_Pl ... n_Rate.pdf

The USA incarceration rate was relatively stable from 1944 to 1974, quintupled over the next 34 years, and peaked at 506 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 population in 2008. The incarceration rate fell to 492 in 2011. That decline reflects a plummeting incarceration rate for young adults, offset by a surging rate for those over age 45. All of these trends reflect earlier trends in preschool lead exposure.
From 2001 to 2011, the incarceration rate for men ages 18 and 19 fell by 43%. The rate for men ages 20-24 fell 29%, and the rate for men ages 25-29 fell 17%. Over that same ten year period, the incarceration rate for men ages 40-44 increased 33%, the rate for men ages 45-54 increased 79%, and the rate for men ages 55 and older doubled.

Now, granted, the incarceration rate for the USA is still ridiculously high due to various factors (such as income inequality and the War on Some Drugs) unrelated to lead poisoning; which is why the fall and drop in incarceration across the age-based bell curve is not symmetric.

Regardless, incarceration rates do and did dramatically decline for younger adults and continue to do so. If you don't believe that it's the explosion then collapse of blood-lead levels, what do you propose caused this temporal shift?

[Taishan]

So if it is shown that lead poisoning is a neurotoxin that inhibits IQ and causes poor impulse control, why should we believe that there's something special about lead as opposed to chemical neurotoxins in general?

There's a difference between a neurotoxin that causes nerve cell death and one that impedes neuronal activity such that death of the organism occurs, especially if you are looking at chronic vs. acute exposure. If nothing else, the effects of one cannot be reversed while the effects of the other can be.

[Lago PARANOIA]

There's a difference between a neurotoxin that causes nerve cell death and one that impedes neuronal activity such that death of the organism occurs, especially if you are looking at chronic vs. acute exposure. If nothing else, the effects of one cannot be reversed while the effects of the other can be.

Okay. And?

[Taishan]

There's a difference between a neurotoxin that causes nerve cell death and one that impedes neuronal activity such that death of the organism occurs, especially if you are looking at chronic vs. acute exposure. If nothing else, the effects of one cannot be reversed while the effects of the other can be.

Okay. And?

Because its not easy to make solid conclusions based on how a neurotoxin in a lab may affect a population at chronic doses. The link between biological affect of lead and the levels of lead in blood and the IQ/crime rate is entirely correlation. There lot of other pollutants we dump into the environment that are just as bad in the lab and I'm sure follow a similar correlation to crime or IQ. Hanging our hat on lead as the magic bullet to solving crime at this juncture is bad policy because you're basing the success of your policy on a correlation; if we got rid of lead and did not see a change, it would reduce future credibility. I'd rather we remove lead cause we know its not good for well established reasons and have reasonable expectations of that policy. If we lower crime in addition, hey, that's the sprinkles on top of the icing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Because its not easy to make solid conclusions based on how a neurotoxin in a lab may affect a population at chronic doses.

Not easy =/= not possible. And it's not cool of you to make that equivocation. Especially considering how you obviously didn't read those links, because Nevin cross-examined demographic and sociological factors to isolate the variable and support his hypothesis.

Shall I link you to some articles? He's not the only one, by the way.

There lot of other pollutants we dump into the environment that are just as bad in the lab and I'm sure follow a similar correlation to crime or IQ. Hanging our hat on lead as the magic bullet to solving crime at this juncture is bad policy because you're basing the success of your policy on a correlation;

Then you don't support doing any kind of empirical-based policy because you will never have anything better than correlation. You might have a tighter correlation (and I invite you to provide it), but it's pretty basic epistemology that correlation is all you will ever have or will ever get.

So far, lead has a tighter correlation to violent crime than any other popular variable (race, media or actual violence, crack-cocaine epidemic, income inequality, abortion levels, etc.) floated in the media. If you're saying that the correlation isn't tight enough to form policy then I wonder what empirical data is correlated strongly enough for you.

if we got rid of lead and did not see a change, it would reduce future credibility.

It's interesting how that never seems to discredit any other crime fighting or causing target or policy ever.

Interesting. And convenient.

[shadzar]

News Pollution. stop putting everything on the news all the time unless it is extremely important or relevant. the way the media treats some things make them seem glorified more than crimes. also the commentary and snide remarks and jokes about some of the news helps make the crime seem more joking than serious.

recent news thing about a pickup truck backing into a soda machine and jsut driving off with the soda that fell form the broke machine had the comment "well i guess that is one way if you are thirsty to get a quick drink." comments like that shit should never be made even in jest to make it sound like something other people should try.

also the news should do like Mythbusters, and put disclaimers to "not try this at home".

pretty much all the news is problematic.

this may not be a chemical, but it is a pollutant that our world is currently infested with, and at times even propaganda or just mental pollution.

[ishy]

also the news should do like Mythbusters, and put disclaimers to "not try this at home".

Two aeroplanes flew into the twin towers, do not try this at home folks!

[Shrapnel]

Shadzar, by your method the news would not exist at all, and no one would know anything.

[Red Archon]

Goddammit, I wasn't logged on and mistakenly read shadzar's post. You ask what pollutant causes violence? He fucking does.

[Grek]

Alternative hypothesis: Being poor growing up makes it more likely that you'll become a criminal as an adult AND more likely to live in the part of town where the swing sets still have lead paint as a child. Lead paint exposure and violent crime are caused by poverty.