• spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    That’s incorrect. It’s correlation, not causation.

    If lead were such a direct cause of violence, they should start diverging at the introduction of lead, not long after a notable decline in lead levels. (ok ok not diverge at first, but still have a predictable, visible connection throughout)

    Children grow up constantly, and only one of the lines is not age-restricted. If it were to ever diverge while still being a major cause, it’d begin to diverge at the introduction of the stimulus… or rather, start to diverge when the supposed initiating cause was reduced.

    As you say, lead is a lifetime problem. If it were to be a tent pole contributor to violence, violence wouldn’t have reduced in lockstep basically ever.

    Lead is a massive problem and is a toxin, but it surely did not itself contribute to increased violence. Increased stupidity? Absolutely.

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Lead is a neurotoxin. Its link to violence is not in question by any serious statistical analysis.

      Leave apologia at the door please.