Skip to main content

View Diary: Pollution Contributed to our Political Troubles? (12 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The only problem with your thesis is that we were (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, viral, sturunner

    pretty much all exposed to lead as children, yet only a very few have made it to the tea party.

    •  Lot's of Confounding Factors (0+ / 0-)

      weaken the correlation, but they don't mean it isn't there.

      •  Yeah, right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Susan from 29, sturunner

        that sounds very scientific.  Why don't you add in radiation from granite counters, toilets -- hell all ceramics -- vintage glass and clocks, etc.

        You missed lead paint, lead toys, leaded glass windows, hell, leaded crystal . . . .

        " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 03:57:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do I Need to Post Graphs to Demonstrate? (0+ / 0-)

          I am, in fact, a scientist and am very well versed in how to analyze data statistically. I can't vouch for the epidemiological studies on which my speculation is based, having not read them directly, but what I said in response to Susan above is 100% accurate and "scientific."

          The easiest way to explain it is to hide all the complexity of whether someone develops enough empathy to not be a selfish jerk into a single probability. As if a person flipped a coin growing up that determines whether they become a selfish jerk or not, only the coin isn't fair. To make it concrete, let's say that this selfish jerk coin had a 70% probability of coming up false when people in Congress were growing up. Susan's point was, "The chances of not becoming a jerk weren't 0 so your point is invalid." My point was (more or less) that we're talking about nudging that percentage around some, not some ideal impossibility.

          Do you understand now?

        •  One More Point (0+ / 0-)

          For those other factors you mentioned "radiation, lead paint, etc." When you have epidemiological studies that show correlation with their usage and dose-response data that covers the range of exposure in question, then they're worth taking seriously. Hint: that's the level of evidence we're dealing with here.

      •  Sorry, you are not providing any evidence to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        back up your claim. The single link you provide goes to a paywall.

        I was raised during the 50s and exposed to lead everywhere, not just in gasoline. Hell, our teachers passed out samples of mercury to play with when we were discussing the states of matter.

        I don't know how you can claim that lead exposure has something to do with the crazies in Congress without saying that it led to the not crazies in Congress as well. Unless you have some other way to eliminate all of the sanity that was not destroyed by lead exposure.

        •  I'm Not Seeing A Pay Wall (0+ / 0-)

          Here's the relevant part:

          Mean blood lead levels in US children steadily decreased in the 1970s and 1980s as lead was removed from paint and gasoline. As a result, symptomatic lead poisoning as described above has largely disappeared.

          However, it is critical to point out that lead has effects at far lower levels than previously thought. Complex epidemiology studies have demonstrated similar cognitive and behavioral problems in cases of subclinical levels of lead in blood, thus reinforcing Byers and Lord's original findings.[9-13]

          For example, in 1979 Needleman and colleagues[9] found a link between elevated levels of lead and cognitive and behavioral abnormalities. Children with high dentine lead levels had lower reading scores, greater inattentiveness, and lower IQ than those with low levels. Subsequent population testing has estimated a loss of 2-4 IQ points as blood lead levels increase from 10 μg/dL to 20 μg/dL.[10-13]

          Epidemiologic data led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish the current action level of 10 μg/dL in 1991.[1] The prevalence of elevated blood levels of lead in the United States has decreased substantially since then from about 8.6% in 1988-1991 to about 1.4% in 1999-2004.[14]

          Also, check out the link provided by DavidMS above:

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site