this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
591 points (96.7% liked)

science

29555 readers
216 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

Leave apologia at the door please.