Does Lead Paint Produce More Crime Too?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


One obvious question about my story on the link between lead poisoning and violent crime is why I focus so heavily on gasoline lead. What about lead paint in old housing stock? Isn’t that just as important?

The answer is simple. My focus was on the rise and fall of crime in the era after World War II, and lead paint didn’t play a big role in that. During that era, exposure to lead from paint was fairly stable, possibly declining a bit over time as lead paint was phased out, and it probably contributed to a generally elevated level of crime during the entire period. But because it was fairly stable, it didn’t contribute to either a dramatic rise or fall in crime.

But what about earlier? Use of lead paint did rise substantially in the early 20th century, so why not look at that? Again, the answer is simple: we don’t have reliable crime statistics going back that far, so it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions about the effect of lead paint on crime.

But here’s one of those interesting tidbits I mentioned yesterday that I didn’t have room for in the main article. It turns out that there’s one crime we do have good long-term data for: murder. Murder has always been pretty easy to define and it’s always been fairly reliably reported. It’s only one data point, but does it fit the lead hypothesis?

Here’s what we’d expect. Lead paint use rose in the early 20th century, peaking in the teens and then dropping. Then, in the late 40s, gasoline lead started to rise, peaking in the 70s and then dropping. Since lead primarily affects small children, you’d expect that kids exposed to lead paint would grow up and become more violent in the 30s, then taper off, and then become more violent again in the 60s. It should be a double-humped curve.

And guess what? That’s exactly what we see in the data:

As usual, I want to caution everyone about trying to infer too much from this. Lead isn’t the only cause of crime, and getting rid of it won’t necessarily return us to the crime rates of a century ago. Crime is driven by culture, by guns, by poverty, by race, by drug use, by demographics, by policing tactics, by incarceration, and more. Nevertheless, the close match between two unusual curves like this is striking. We don’t have much data going back before World War II, but what data we do have offers yet more confirmation of the link between lead and crime.

Needless to say, this also confirms the importance of cleaning up lead paint as well as lead-impregnated soil. Lead paint isn’t a big part of the postwar crime wave story, but lead is lead, and higher levels produce more crime, more learning disabilities, lower IQs, and lower lifetime earnings. Wherever it is, we need to clean it up.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate