Quote:
|
Lead may be one factor that leads to higher rates of violence, I suspect that other factors may have a larger contribution to crime rates, and increased lead exposure just happens to line up with the main factors.
|
Has anyone (besides those of us here) considered the possibility that lead exposure might not be
the cause of the violence, but just an environmental factor that is "along for the ride" so to speak?
That other factors are the determining factors and created conditions where greater lead exposure was part of the environment along with "increased violence"??
Determining lead exposer is the cause is an OPINION, and I think one not supported by much, considering that for every violent individual there are literally thousands if not millions of people with exactly the same environmental conditions who do NOT commit violence??
In other words, IF A causes B then why doesn't it cause B in EVERYONE??
Why are we not (completely) a society of mad reavers bent on death and destruction? Some individuals are, but generally ,we are not, which leaves me to doubt the claim that lead is the cause.
I think individual choice, and, to a degree societal "norms" are the determining factors. A century ago, someone using bad language in front of a lady could be physically beaten, and society considered that proper. Today, its assault and they will put you in jail. It was assault then, but nobody cared. That's the kind of thing I mean by societal norms.
Yes, a lot of the hardcore criminals grew up in poor disadvantaged conditions, but so did a lot more people who didn't become criminals.
Environmental conditions are something you can LINK to behavior, something you can co-relate, but stating they are a definitive cause is a conclusion, an opinion, not facts.
Kind of like saying everyone who drinks water, drowns. Not true as far as I can see.