2013-01-04 08:32:36.587125-08 by Dan Lyke 4 comments
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
The Reason response actually supported the lead-crime finding. As I read it, they were mostly trying to restrict the IQ and ADHD links. Original paper here:
Thanks. I went after the Reason post 'cause I was trying to find sources other than Mother Jones, and just skimmed it.
His Science Is Too Tight! The Link Between Leaded Gasoline and Crime has some critical words, and links (approvingly) to Kevin Drum's response to a couple of critiques:
That said, Firestone is right to want further research. In particular, he's right to point out that my cost-benefit numbers involved a fair amount of handwaving. That's because no one has done a truly comprehensive analysis that I could draw on. So the truth is that we're both on the same track here. My goal wasn't to pretend that a magazine article can make an airtight scientific case for the association of lead and crime. My goal was to lay out the evidence and get the scientific community to take it seriously enough to take the next step. ...
We will not edit your comments. However, we may delete your comments, or cause them to be hidden behind another link, if we feel they detract from the conversation. Commercial plugs are fine, if they are relevant to the conversation, and if you don't try to pretend to be a consumer. Annoying endorsements will be deleted if you're lucky, if you're not a whole bunch of people smarter and more articulate than you will ridicule you, and we will leave such ridicule in place.
Connectivity provided by highertech.net , awesome bandwidth, well away from fault lines and other potential for natural disasters, reliable, and run by cool people.
Questions, comments, flames: contact Dan Lyke
Flutterby™ is a trademark claimed byDan Lyke for the web publications at www.flutterby.com and www.flutterby.net.