View Full Version : 'America's Real Criminal Element: Lead'


Retromancer
01-04-13, 07:18 AM
New research finds Pb [lead] is the hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic. And fixing the problem is a lot cheaper than doing nothing.

http://www.motherjones.com/print/208586

mrs. dobbs
01-04-13, 08:53 AM
Washington D.C.'s crime dropped because they didn't have Bratton there. :p

Amtram
01-04-13, 11:11 AM
*sigh* I'm so tired of this lead canard. Lead poisoning has some very, very specific symptoms. Lead has been reduced so much in the last 30 years that new serum analysis techniques had to be developed to measure the infinitessimal levels of lead in blood samples. We eliminated lead from paint, removed it from gasoline, and replaced lead and lead-lined water supply pipes everywhere in the country. . .and yet, the levels of the conditions still being presented as being caused by lead did not change at all. The only thing that actually changed was that the incidence of lead poisoning and lead-poisoning related damage decreased.

Little kids who live in old buildings and eat paint chips that have lead in them get lead poisoning. They get treated for lead poisoning, because that's what they have. Otherwise, there's just not enough lead in the environment to blame it for causing anything.

Unmanagable
01-05-13, 07:47 AM
Thanks for sharing that, Retro.

It prompted me to look for more info.

Especially after also learning a new word today. Thanks, Amtram.

Canard -
a: a false or unfounded report or story; especially: a fabricated report

b: a groundless rumor or belief

I came across this and found it interesting:

http://ucanr.org/repository/cao/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v060n04p180&fulltext=yes

Not sure about their credibility ratings, etc., but appreciate the opportunity to learn more.

I wasn't aware of the variety of possible issues related to lead exposure.

We're swimming in a buffet of toxicity, that's for sure.

roseblood
01-12-13, 05:22 PM
*sigh* I'm so tired of this lead canard. Lead poisoning has some very, very specific symptoms. Lead has been reduced so much in the last 30 years that new serum analysis techniques had to be developed to measure the infinitessimal levels of lead in blood samples. We eliminated lead from paint, removed it from gasoline, and replaced lead and lead-lined water supply pipes everywhere in the country. . .and yet, the levels of the conditions still being presented as being caused by lead did not change at all. The only thing that actually changed was that the incidence of lead poisoning and lead-poisoning related damage decreased.

Little kids who live in old buildings and eat paint chips that have lead in them get lead poisoning. They get treated for lead poisoning, because that's what they have. Otherwise, there's just not enough lead in the environment to blame it for causing anything.

It's a shame you didn't read it, your posts are often very valuable when they're well informed.

Quotes from the article:

The EPA now says flatly that there is "no demonstrated safe concentration of lead in blood," and it turns out that even levels under 10 μg/dL can reduce IQ by as much as seven points. An estimated 2.5 percent of children nationwide have lead levels above 5 μg/dL.

Other recent (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810427/) studies link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17185283) even minuscule blood lead levels with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Even at concentrations well below those usually considered safe—levels still common today—lead increases the odds of kids developing ADHD.

Our cars may be lead-free today, but they spent more than 50 years spewing lead from their tailpipes, and all that lead had to go somewhere. And it did: It settled permanently into the soil that we walk on, grow our food in, and let our kids play around.

That's especially true in the inner cores of big cities, which had the highest density of automobile traffic. Mielke has been studying lead in soil for years, focusing most of his attention on his hometown of New Orleans, and he's measured 10 separate census tracts there with lead levels over 1,000 parts per million.

To get a sense of what this means, you have to look at how soil levels of lead typically correlate with blood levels, which are what really matter. Mielke has studied this in New Orleans, and it turns out that the numbers go up very fast even at low levels. Children who live in neighborhoods with a soil level of 100 ppm have average blood lead concentrations of 3.8 μg/dL—a level that's only barely tolerable. At 500 ppm, blood levels go up to 5.9 μg/dL, and at 1,000 ppm they go up to 7.5 μg/dL. These levels are high enough to do serious damage.

"I know people who have moved into gentrified neighborhoods and immediately renovate everything. They create huge hazards for their kids."
Mielke's partner, Sammy Zahran, walked me through a lengthy—and hair-raising—presentation about the effect that all that old gasoline lead continues to have in New Orleans. The very first slide describes the basic problem: Lead in soil doesn't stay in the soil. Every summer, like clockwork, as the weather dries up, all that lead gets kicked back into the atmosphere in a process called resuspension. The zombie lead is back to haunt us.

Mark Laidlaw, a doctoral student who has worked with Mielke, explains how this works: People and pets track lead dust from soil into houses, where it's ingested by small children via hand-to-mouth contact. Ditto for lead dust generated by old paint inside houses. This dust cocktail is where most lead exposure today comes from.

This is also consistent with the fact that ADHD is more common in cities than rural areas. I know some people don't want to believe that ADHD is ever brain damage, but if you're going to let emotion determine how fairly and thoroughly you investigate a possibility, what about the emotion generated by knowing that people currently attribute the uneven distribution of ADHD to rampant misdiagnosis, or use it to justify dismissive sociological explanations for the whole disorder?

SweetCode
01-12-13, 06:11 PM
roseblood it's sad for you...

I am too young to remember but probably people older will laugh at this new , because years ago almost everything was done using lead , it was the most versatile metal around... By this theory everyone over 40years should have ADHD...

7 IQ points is a really small thing and considering that IQ is not that precise....

Honestly I don't want to sound agressive toward americans but you guys seems to always need to find "the guilty" , "the enemy" , stuff isn't black or white in real live , there is a ton of tones between everything, lead can cause problems but it's not like that...

Ohhh they matched lead and violence , guess what... LEAD IS CHEAP! and who needs cheap stuff? poor people! and where there is social inequality there's violence!

The problem with the mass media is that they love to draw conclusions from real science... science is just stating a fact and people extrapolate it until it cannot be seen... also you should be aware that for each research stating something there are dozens that weren't sucessful that were not published...

This lead to violence ratio is saying "We consumed Lead here and there was violence there" , it's not stating that the lead caused the violence , only saying "this is a possibility that we should study." , The use of lead has several social factors linked to it... not considering them is just pseudo-science.

Seriously , stop looking for #1 enemies... If you want my opinion on why there's so much crime in america , the answer is because you guys have this constant need to be fighting something.

I knew many sportsman shooters and the vast majority were totally NT and I guess that they absorb a lot of lead when shooting in small closed rooms.

SweetCode
01-12-13, 06:19 PM
Here have this science joke at this kind of article.

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

Amtram
01-12-13, 07:14 PM
I actually did read the article later on, and while it did present certain valid ideas and touch on the fact that there are certain statistical correlations between lead and behavior, it had enough vague explanations and suggestive language that it really didn't give a useful and factual conclusion.

The correlation between lead and ADHD, which was most poorly presented in the article, is pretty much nonexistent. What researchers are finding is that in children with ADD-PI there is a piece of DNA that regulates lead processing and elimination that is not as efficient as it is in ADHD and ADHD-C children or non-ADHD children. In essence, exposed to equal amounts of lead, people with this particular gene will retain a nearly unmeasurable amount in the blood - not enough to have any actual effect, but enough to find in a highly sensitive test. This piece of genetics also happens to be found most frequently in children with ADHD-PI.

It has been misinterpreted frequently as "children with ADHD have higher levels of lead, therefore lead causes ADHD," even though the correlation that does exist says nothing of the kind. The rest of the article wasn't entirely misleading, but this aspect of it was.

meadd823
01-13-13, 06:47 AM
Mother Jones please. This publications accuracy is suspect - I have read their articles discussing subjects I am actually expert in and they were horribly inaccurate. I do not not consider Mother Jones a reliable source of accurate information.


SweetCode while I agree with your over all logic regarding the topic of lead and ADHD I do not appreciate being lumped together with moronic journalist who write crap simply because I happen to live in the same country .

If I lumped every one who lives in Mexico into a single category or referred to people from Africa as " you people" accusations would fly fast and wild - Remove the word American and insert any other group of people and if is inappropriate for them it is not appropriate.

SweetCode
01-13-13, 06:58 AM
Mother Jones please. This publications accuracy is suspect - I have read their articles discussing subjects I am actually expert in and they were horribly inaccurate. I do not not consider Mother Jones a reliable source of accurate information.


SweetCode while I agree with your over all logic regarding the topic of lead and ADHD I do not appreciate being lumped together with moronic journalist who write crap simply because I happen to live in the same country .

If I lumped every one who lives in Mexico into a single category or referred to people from Africa as " you people" accusations would fly fast and wild - Remove the word American and insert any other group of people and if is inappropriate for them it is not appropriate.


i understand your preocupation and I even tried to edit to avoid this conversation it but it was after 30 minutes so I couldn't edit...

It's a generalization , cultural generalizations always have their exceptions, I am not the regular brazilian but I wouldn't be mad at someone saying that "brazilians are always looking in a way of getting advantage over other people and they care more about carnival than they care about corruption" , but I understand that some would be.

So sorry for writing that and I wished I could edit specially because it's against the rules to talk about the politics but sadly I can't , but just to make my point clear I was stating that american media and goverment common reaction to any problem that happens is that "we should be sure that it never happen again" or "What is the enemy behind [insert anything polemic here]" and this attitude usually reflects in a violent approach to problems , like it's literally a war against most of the things, I am not saying that every USA citizen agrees with that view or thinks that way just stating that this is the mass reaction, I know many really amazing , intelligent and rational USA citizens, but you probably agree that there is a lot of "OMG! MUST STOP! KILL IT WITH FIRE!" wackos.

Sorry for the incovenience, mods feel free to edit , delete or whatever any of mine posts in this topic.

meadd823
01-13-13, 07:08 AM
I understand some of the things I post come across badly no matter how long I edit and many times I re-edit.



Our news media sucks, it is an embarrassment of that I agree. The untouchable topics well your not far off the mark there either hence you can surely see why I do NOT want to be lumped with these idiots.

Clarification appreciated -:)

sarahsweets
01-13-13, 08:46 AM
If lead is responsible for adhd-like brain damage how come there wasnt more kids having adhd issues or behavior/neurological conditions 40 years ago?(even if they didnt have a name for it?)

Rebelyell
01-13-13, 09:42 AM
Mother jones needs a lead pipe upside her head me thinks:D

Amtram
01-13-13, 12:21 PM
Hmmmm. Suspect publications. . .I happen to bring that up quite a bit, IIRC. It's always important to consider the source, and then backtrack to find the original source, compare and contrast, and even look at opposing viewpoints. Information nowadays travels fast and furious, and worse than a game of telephone with online editors trying to get their story to show up on the first page of a google search no matter what.

roseblood
01-13-13, 03:08 PM
What researchers are finding is that in children with ADD-PI there is a piece of DNA that regulates lead processing and elimination that is not as efficient as it is in ADHD and ADHD-C children or non-ADHD children. In essence, exposed to equal amounts of lead, people with this particular gene will retain a nearly unmeasurable amount in the blood - not enough to have any actual effect, but enough to find in a highly sensitive test. This piece of genetics also happens to be found most frequently in children with ADHD-PI.
Knowing what we know about the effects that lead has on the prefrontal cortex and behaviour of both rats and humans, you really think this increased lead retention - which however slight in terms of how hard we currently find it to measure levels of any element, will still mean increased neurological exposure to circulating lead every second of every day - probably has no part to play in the increased rate of ADHD among those with the gene?

Also, you say the levels in the blood are only slightly increased; does that necessarily mean that the overall level of lead that's been dumped into the tissues, including the brain, is just as slight? Blood heavy metal measurements can be very misleading in people who have impaired elimination. In people with autism - who retain more mercury than average - the amount of mercury found in the blood and hair is lower than the amount predicted by how much is found in other tests. The ratio of blood mercury level to tissue mercury level is lower than that in people without autism. The same could be occurring with ADHD and lead, could it not?

Has it been determined whether those with the gene who have (long-term) the lowest amounts of lead in their blood, due to less exposure, have the same rate of ADHD as those with the gene who have higher amounts? If lead does not contribute to ADHD, then you would expect to see no difference.

roseblood
01-13-13, 03:38 PM
7 IQ points is a really small thing and considering that IQ is not that precise....

Regardless of how important 7 points worth of IQ score is in itself to your quality of life and societal contribution, statistical variations among large groups of people, still indicate when something has changed in the brain between two groups, and any change in a negative direction has to be taken seriously. If the average IQ goes down by 7 points, the important things to ask are:

How many people have been pushed from low average to clinically retarded? How many people have been pushed from above average to mediocre, and from bigoted to accepting of harmless differences (the higher your IQ the less likely you are to be racist, sexist etc.). How many great poets and mathematicians will now JUST MISS OUT on doing something truly groundbreaking, in the same way that they JUST MISSED OUT on getting the several more IQ test questions right? And most importantly, if the neurological change has caused a difference in the ability to take an IQ test, what else might it cause a change in? The brain is incredibly complex and if your IQ test-taking ability has been lowered by 7 points, then other, far worse things are likely to have also happened when the damage was done. The prefrontal cortex is by far the most easily damaged part of the brain. When something goes wrong in development, that is almost always hit first and hit worse. Notice how concussions and meningitis cause temporarily or permanently worsened concentration for a while, as the number one most common complaint during recovery, and pregnancy complications of all kinds lead to a greater average increase in ADHD characteristics than the characteristics of any other disorder. Therefore, when something damages the brain enough to cause a drop of seven IQ points, it's very likely it also did damage, worse damage, to the prefrontal cortex. Increased ADHD traits. Lowered quality of life.

I am too young to remember but probably people older will laugh at this new , because years ago almost everything was done using lead , it was the most versatile metal around... By this theory everyone over 40years should have ADHD....
ADHD was not diagnosed much in their generation. What did happen that is consistent with a rise in actual ADHD cases, was a massive spike in the crime rate, which has risen and fallen, in multiple places and times, in tandem with average lead exposure. Don't forget that a very large percentage of adults with ADHD are incarcerated, in drug rehabilitiation, or immersed in the criminal world, especially those who were never diagnosed, and along with the higher accidental death rate, this will hide the true rate of ADHD among those 40+ from those of us with it who are not any of those things.


Honestly I don't want to sound agressive toward americans but you guys seems to always need to find "the guilty" , "the enemy" , stuff isn't black or white in real live , there is a ton of tones between everything, lead can cause problems but it's not like that...
I am not American. :eyebrow:

You however, just did the very stereotypically American thing of assuming that everyone online is from the USA.

roseblood
01-13-13, 04:45 PM
Mother Jones please. This publications accuracy is suspect - I have read their articles discussing subjects I am actually expert in and they were horribly inaccurate. I do not not consider Mother Jones a reliable source of accurate information.
That's an ad hominem. I don't consider anything or anyone to be a reliable source of information - even the most widely respected publications, organisations and news outlets have been caught out more than once - but I still find it worth reading and listening because at least the most probable explanations can eventually be narrowed down by researching around a subject, checking with any cited sources whether quotes were correct and in context, hunting down counter-arguments, and analysing the interpretations given for ourselves.

sarahsweets
01-13-13, 05:16 PM
Regardless of how important 7 points worth of IQ score is in itself to your quality of life and societal contribution, statistical variations among large groups of people, still indicate when something has changed in the brain between two groups, and any change in a negative direction has to be taken seriously. If the average IQ goes down by 7 points, the important things to ask are:

How many people have been pushed from low average to clinically retarded? How many people have been pushed from above average to mediocre, and from bigoted to accepting of harmless differences (the higher your IQ the less likely you are to be racist, sexist etc.). How many great poets and mathematicians will now JUST MISS OUT on doing something truly groundbreaking, in the same way that they JUST MISSED OUT on getting the several more IQ test questions right? And most importantly, if the neurological change has caused a difference in the ability to take an IQ test, what else might it cause a change in? The brain is incredibly complex and if your IQ test-taking ability has been lowered by 7 points, then other, far worse things are likely to have also happened when the damage was done. The prefrontal cortex is by far the most easily damaged part of the brain. When something goes wrong in development, that is almost always hit first and hit worse. Notice how concussions and meningitis cause temporarily or permanently worsened concentration for a while, as the number one most common complaint during recovery, and pregnancy complications of all kinds lead to a greater average increase in ADHD characteristics than the characteristics of any other disorder. Therefore, when something damages the brain enough to cause a drop of seven IQ points, it's very likely it also did damage, worse damage, to the prefrontal cortex. Increased ADHD traits. Lowered quality of life.


ADHD was not diagnosed much in their generation. What did happen that is consistent with a rise in actual ADHD cases, was a massive spike in the crime rate, which has risen and fallen, in multiple places and times, in tandem with average lead exposure. Don't forget that a very large percentage of adults with ADHD are incarcerated, in drug rehabilitiation, or immersed in the criminal world, especially those who were never diagnosed, and along with the higher accidental death rate, this will hide the true rate of ADHD among those 40+ from those of us with it who are not any of those things.


I am not American. :eyebrow:

You however, just did the very stereotypically American thing of assuming that everyone online is from the USA.

Do you honestly believe that someone with a higher IQ is less bigoted or racist?

Fortune
01-13-13, 05:50 PM
Do you honestly believe that someone with a higher IQ is less bigoted or racist?

If you search google you can find studies that point to this as a possibility. I am hesitant to link any because of the possibility to go political.

Amtram
01-13-13, 06:55 PM
roseblood, check out the video I posted here (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137260). Check out the articles in PubMed on ADHD and lead. The science is there.

I don't think it's an ad hominem to say that a particular source of information has historically been unreliable. I know that there are websites out there and authors and magazines that regularly provide false medical information, often to sell products. If I say "don't believe this guy because he's selling something that doesn't work," it's not an ad hominem. If I say, "don't believe this guy because he's stupid and his mother dresses him funny," then that's an ad hominem.

This particular article is an example of bad journalism that misinterprets scientific fact in order to stay on message. I consider that a positive correlation with it being an unreliable source of information.

SweetCode
01-13-13, 07:05 PM
Nope, 7 points still irrelevant , mainly because IQ is not really relevant , anyway this IQ variation is like saying "People showed heartbeat 7 points faster" , it's technically irrelevant, again the social aspects regarding lead can also interfere in this.

The massive spikes have tons of social related stuff , how we handle cities as a society change a lot just like the use of lead.

I was talking about the article not about you, as I already said here in the forum I don't criticize people but I do criticize ideas, I was talking how bad is the will to put everything as public enemy #1.

meadd823 wasn't going ad hominem , why is the entire internet talking about fallacies all the frakking time, people barely understand what is a logical inference, if you want to talk about fallacies, I can list around 20 fallacies in that article and all I did was a speed read on the article and on the abstract of the scientific paper.


"roseblood , you're believing in such article that has no evidence , why should anyone agree with you?" , that's is ad hominem, I State a something and using this something I reduce your credibility to avoid counter-argumentation.

"Roseblood, I Don't trust the credibility of this evidence presented" , is not ad hominem , I am just requesting more evidence, it's like when the computer on the movies goes "I need more data."

When you said that Amtran should have readed the article before commenting that was Ad Hominem for example, you had no information if he read or not and instead of arguing against his arguments you just accused him in a way that his arguments lost credibility. see?

And also I should warn you that fallacies are used almost all the time in internet conversations since we are not doing science we don't need to apply formal logic on every conversation, otherwise you would see dozens of pragraphs to say what we usually say in a single line.

Fortune, IQ are not a reliable tool , it's just a thing to give a notion to guide the application of more reliable tools, also someone being stupid or not doesn't make this person good or not, but it's hard to keep writing and not going political (another point pointing on the direction that it's not IQ related but cultural related)

Fortune
01-13-13, 07:13 PM
Fortune, IQ are not a reliable tool , it's just a thing to give a notion to guide the application of more reliable tools, also someone being stupid or not doesn't make this person good or not, but it's hard to keep writing and not going political (another point pointing on the direction that it's not IQ related but cultural related)

This has literally nothing to do with my post, which was simply offering information to another poster. I have no idea how you got to this from what I wrote, or why you're trying to argue a point with me that I did not make.

SweetCode
01-13-13, 07:21 PM
Do you honestly believe that someone with a higher IQ is less bigoted or racist?If you search google you can find studies that point to this as a possibility. I am hesitant to link any because of the possibility to go political.

Sarah is stating that she doesn't believe that IQ is related to how someone handle preconceptions.

You stated that she would find articles at google that point it as a possibility.

I'm stating that even if there's articles pointing in that direction that IQ is not a reliable tool and only can be used as guidance to applying better tools, therefore the articles wouldn't be proving anything they would only be calling for more studies in that direction.

Fortune
01-13-13, 07:28 PM
Sarah is stating that she doesn't believe that IQ is related to how someone handle preconceptions.

You stated that she would find articles at google that point it as a possibility.

I'm stating that even if there's articles pointing in that direction that IQ is not a reliable tool and only can be used as guidance to applying better tools, therefore the articles wouldn't be proving anything they would only be calling for more studies in that direction.

I didn't say the articles proved anything, so telling me they don't prove anything is not a counter to anything I said.

I also think that you need to back up the claim that IQ is not a reliable tool, since you keep repeating it. I can tell you that IQ tests are not reliable in testing many autistic people (some test lower than they should because of language impairments, for example, and unlike NTs their VABS scores tend to be lower than IQ) and I can tell you that IQ tests are not necessarily reliable in predicting outcomes. However, just saying that they are not reliable across the board is a fairly sweeping claim and one that should be backed up by empirical data.

In any event, I wasn't really looking for an explanation. I am not trying to participate in this conversation. I gave sarahsweets some information to answer her question, and now somehow you've got this entire idea about what I said that has no relation to what I said.

SweetCode
01-13-13, 07:59 PM
I wasn't saying that you believe or not that it proved, you said that there was articles pointing that there was some relation and I just said that this relation was not relevant, I am not concerned about your believes and I wasn't critizing you, I was talking about the papers only.

about backing up my claims around IQ, it is a just a test that can be applied to give a certain notion of the person intelligence , but this test can have some huge variatiions depending on other factors that aren't related to intelligence also it's specifically design to one type of intelligence and there is many types of intelligence.

So the IQ is a great tool to evaluate changes over time in a certain group of people but it's not a good tool to compare 2 or more groups of people on different environments , since it can be affected by many environmental factors and also it is not a good tool to evaluating if a person needs a service or something like that.

Fortune
01-13-13, 08:04 PM
I wasn't saying that you believe or not that it proved, you said that there was articles pointing that there was some relation and I just said that this relation was not relevant, I am not concerned about your believes and I wasn't critizing you, I was talking about the papers only.

Then why address it to me? I made no arguments. I didn't say you were criticizing me, but that you were responding to me as if I said things I did not say.

about backing up my claims around IQ, it is a just a test that can be applied to give a certain notion of the person intelligence , but this test can have some huge variatiions depending on other factors that aren't related to intelligence also it's specifically design to one type of intelligence and there is many types of intelligence.

One of the criteria for a usable IQ test is that they don't have huge variations. Some people with autism, ADHD, and learning disabilities have certain patterns of inconsistent scores, which is why they may be less applicable in some circumstances.

So the IQ is a great tool to evaluate changes over time in a certain group of people but it's not a good tool to compare 2 or more groups of people on different environments , since it can be affected by many environmental factors and also it is not a good tool to evaluating if a person needs a service or something like that.

It is not used to determine if people need services. There are other tools that provide such information, such as the VABS I mentioned in my previous post.

Amtram
01-13-13, 08:17 PM
We have some other threads here that deal with IQ and ADHD, or you can start a new one, but it's not exactly 100% on topic here. The primary thrust of the article was that there was a direct correlation between lead levels and criminal behavior, with a side of "lead causes ADHD."

Lead poisoning over the long term can impact IQ, because it's a neurotoxin. However, the amount of lead exposure in America at this point is so low that there are only certain environments in which it's still an issue, and most of that involves lead paint chip ingestion. Even in older areas with some remaining lead piping in the water system, the level of lead exposure required to show lead poisoning just isn't high enough. There might be some lead in the bodies of people in those areas, but it's not enough to be considered lead poisoning.

In addition, there are treatments that can remove lead from the body more quickly than the body excretes it normally. They would be used in acute lead poisoning cases, and those cases might not result in permanent brain damage, either. It takes a long time of high levels of exposure to result in something irreversible.

We know that lead exposure right now is just not common enough at high levels because many of us survived decades of lead in EVERYTHING, and even then the number of lead poisoning cases was limited. If you're looking for something that has a verifiable cause and effect, lead is not the thing to be looking at. If you have something happening right now that's at the same level of incidence that it was back when lead was in all paint, all gasoline, and pretty much all water systems, then lead isn't behind it. If it went down significantly after lead was removed from the environment, then you might have a case there.

SweetCode
01-13-13, 08:18 PM
Fortune , I was only answering to you because you posted it... Thinking again it makes more sense to reply to sarah, anyway... I guess it's clear now..

IQ, doesn't have huge variations in a single group of people during a certain period of time, but in the case of this topic article or regarding how a person behave it's not a great tool since the variations of the starting values will affect the conclusions, the same rule for every research still applies , the closer the env. the better.

The point that I am trying to show here is , IQ is great when used in a group with similar conditions and environment to evaluate the variation of this group in relation within the group, but not as a value by itself or against other groups.

about the services, exactly , that's what I said.

roseblood
01-13-13, 09:03 PM
roseblood, check out the video I posted here (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137260). I don't think it's an ad hominem to say that a particular source of information has historically been unreliable.
No, but it is if you say it to justify dismissing a specific argument that the source makes, in place of investigating the argument on its own merit.

Thanks for the video. I'll watch it later. Whereabouts does it get to the lead? Does it address the questions in my last post to you? I'd really like to know more about this gene but I can't find anything anywhere.

Right now I can think of only two explanations for why scientists would not interpret an association between a gene that impairs lead elimination and ADHD, as probably meaning that the carriers' brains' increased lead exposure is what increases their ADHD risk: 1) the gene has great proximity to genes on the same chromosome that themselves affect ADHD risk (gene linkage). 2) One hell of a bribe. Treating and incarcerating people with ADHD makes more money for drugs companies and private prison contractors than preventing it ever would.

roseblood
01-13-13, 09:19 PM
Lead poisoning over the long term can impact IQ, because it's a neurotoxin. However, the amount of lead exposure in America at this point is so low that there are only certain environments in which it's still an issue, and most of that involves lead paint chip ingestion. Even in older areas with some remaining lead piping in the water system, the level of lead exposure required to show lead poisoning just isn't high enough. There might be some lead in the bodies of people in those areas, but it's not enough to be considered lead poisoning.
Hospitals refuse to get rid of the lead in your body if it's below 10 ug/dl because chelation is itself damaging to the body. Not because it's still believed that only 10 ug/dl matters. It's been known that levels below that do serious damage for years, just not serious enough for them to risk medical intervention. That's why it's not called lead poisoning by the medical community, they're not going to do anything for you anyway so why bother giving it a name. There is no medical or environmental agency I know of in the world who is as dismissive of the damage done by our current average level of lead exposure as this paragraph suggests. They all say there is no safe level of lead in the blood.


If you have something happening right now that's at the same level of incidence that it was back when lead was in all paint, all gasoline, and pretty much all water systems, then lead isn't behind it. If it went down significantly after lead was removed from the environment, then you might have a case there.
Crime did, and not just in the USA. The relationship is highly consistent and widespread. Diagnosis of ADHD went up, but that's because of awareness and criteria changes as we all know. Crime has such a strong association with untreated ADHD that it probably is a decent substitute indicator of changes over time in the actual ADHD rate, and it rose and fell as dramatically in the US and elsewhere as the average blood lead concentration did.

JOHNCG
01-13-13, 11:01 PM
We have some other threads here that deal with IQ and ADHD, or you can start a new one, but it's not exactly 100% on topic here. The primary thrust of the article was that there was a direct correlation between lead levels and criminal behavior, with a side of "lead causes ADHD."

Lead poisoning over the long term can impact IQ, because it's a neurotoxin. However, the amount of lead exposure in America at this point is so low that there are only certain environments in which it's still an issue, and most of that involves lead paint chip ingestion. Even in older areas with some remaining lead piping in the water system, the level of lead exposure required to show lead poisoning just isn't high enough. There might be some lead in the bodies of people in those areas, but it's not enough to be considered lead poisoning.

In addition, there are treatments that can remove lead from the body more quickly than the body excretes it normally. They would be used in acute lead poisoning cases, and those cases might not result in permanent brain damage, either. It takes a long time of high levels of exposure to result in something irreversible.

We know that lead exposure right now is just not common enough at high levels because many of us survived decades of lead in EVERYTHING, and even then the number of lead poisoning cases was limited. If you're looking for something that has a verifiable cause and effect, lead is not the thing to be looking at. If you have something happening right now that's at the same level of incidence that it was back when lead was in all paint, all gasoline, and pretty much all water systems, then lead isn't behind it. If it went down significantly after lead was removed from the environment, then you might have a case there.

Amtram,

Yes, what you say about lead (and Cadmium, for example) and ADHD is right.

Currently, the most advanced (and dominant) toxicant hypothesis re the aetiology of ADHD pertains to a family of environmental poisons called "persistent organic pollutants" (POPs), including such compounds, for instance, as the polychlorinated biphenyls and the polybrominated biphenyls (substances like Dieldrin, DDT and co)

For a very interesting discussion of the role that POPs may play in the aetiology of ADHD, and why POPs might be candidates for "High Risk/High Pay-Off research in ADHD, I would refer you to Professor Joel Nigg's excellent text, "What Causes ADHD?"

Regards,

John

Amtram
01-13-13, 11:11 PM
I've been watching a few of his videos lately, and referred on this thread to one of his videos that I had posted here earlier this week. His research is excellent, which means it is cited often. That's good when it's cited in good science, but really, really bad when it's cited in bad science. In fact, I came across his name the first time in a meta-analysis of questionable value that made the claim that lead can cause ADHD in even homeopathic amounts. It made me very sad.

meadd823
01-14-13, 05:54 AM
That's an ad hominem. I don't consider anything or anyone to be a reliable source of information - even the most widely respected publications, organisations and news outlets have been caught out more than once - but I still find it worth reading and listening because at least the most probable explanations can eventually be narrowed down by researching around a subject, checking with any cited sources whether quotes were correct and in context, hunting down counter-arguments, and analysing the interpretations given for ourselves.


My opinion regarding Mother Jone's accuracy was based upon my personal experience which I clearly stated - Sharing a previous experience regarding a publications reliability is not an ad hominem fallacy any more than discouraging friends and family members from eating at a restaurant that previously served you contaminated food.

Previous experiences are legitimate sources of information as long as they are presented as such.


I did not dismiss the idea of lead toxicity causing ADHD simply because Mother Jones wrote an article about it - I see ADHD as a naturally occurring neurodiversity so I vote that ADHD for a majority is caused by genetic predisposition triggered by multiple environmental influences. I believe the level of violence has multiple causes and claiming lead is the culprit is a gross over simplification.

The article was one very long non sequitur presentation after another laced with straw man arguments that were painfully obvious

SweetCode covered correlation does not imply causation with the cute visual about the number of pirates causing temperature changes in post #7 so I did not see a reason to address it again in my post.


My personal experiences aside there are blaring reasons to dismiss the claims presented in the Mother Jones article none of which are logical fallacies!

SweetCode
01-14-13, 07:05 AM
:goodpost: Exactly!

Lunacie
01-14-13, 10:19 AM
When both my granddaughters were diagnosed, one with Autism, one with ADHD, the doctor suggested testing for lead.

That made no sense to their mother and I, because they had no common painted items at the age when kids chew on
such things. They were nearly four years apart in age and spent those first few years in different houses.

I don't believe the doctor even asked us about family history, but knowing that there are a lot of diagnoses of ADHD and
ASD on my side of the family, we thought it was much more likely to be a case of genetics rather than lead poisoning.

We didn't bother with the testing.

roseblood
01-18-13, 05:27 PM
I've watched the video Amtram, and as far as I can tell the information delivered actually supports the notion that levels of lead below what gets diagnosed officially as "lead poisoning" contribute to ADHD risk. I don't understand how you could see it as doing the opposite. :confused:

That brief section is at 0:50, explaining that ADHD children (especially combined type) have higher lead levels than controls and that lead levels are influenced by gene variants, including the HFE gene variant shown as an example.

According to the lecturer, HFE gene variants affect the competition between iron and lead at iron binding sites. That makes this gene particularly interesting to me, because children with ADHD have on average slightly lower levels of iron in their blood than controls, and the ADHD brain also tends to contain less iron than control brains. If, upon research that you'd imagine would be an obvious next step now this is known, it turns out that a larger percentage of people with ADHD have the HFE variants that increase lead uptake at the expense of iron, these correlations might be explained. In that case, as iron is important in brain development, the chronically lower level of iron in carriers' haemoglobin could contribute to their ADHD, as well as damage from the lead itself.

roseblood
01-18-13, 05:28 PM
What researchers are finding is that in children with ADD-PI there is a piece of DNA that regulates lead processing and elimination that is not as efficient as it is in ADHD and ADHD-C children or non-ADHD children. In essence, exposed to equal amounts of lead, people with this particular gene will retain a nearly unmeasurable amount in the blood - not enough to have any actual effect, but enough to find in a highly sensitive test. This piece of genetics also happens to be found most frequently in children with ADHD-PI.

It has been misinterpreted frequently as "children with ADHD have higher levels of lead, therefore lead causes ADHD," even though the correlation that does exist says nothing of the kind.
I've searched high and low for the study you describe. Can you remember any keywords that would help me find it? The name of the gene, the researchers, etc.?

If it's not explained in the research paper itself, or we can't find it, would you mind explaining what it was that made you conclude that the increased lead uptake caused by the gene is not the cause of their ADHD-PI? What is your alternative explanation for that gene being more common in people with ADHD-PI, and what evidence do you base it upon? How do you justify assuming from a blood test alone, that their lead levels were too small to make a difference, given that blood samples only indicate recent lead exposure, not total body burden? To identify chronic, or acute but non-recent lead poisoning, bone X ray fluorescence and other tests are preferred, because lead does not stay in the blood, it gets dumped in the tissues.

If that's true, I hear people ask, why were blood tests used in the study? Probably because the purpose of the study was not to identify chronic or acute but non-recent lead poisoning, but merely to compare lead uptake tendencies between the groups in question. For that purpose, measuring strictly recent lead uptake was perfectly adequate, cheaper, and arguably superior to finding out total body burdens, because differences in total body burden are heavily influenced by the number and nature of relatively acute exposure incidents (such as refurbishment, or eating after touching soil, mud, roads or floors walked on by outdoor shoes) throughout your whole life - a massive confounding variable. In the few days' worth of time that a blood test tells you about, it's less likely that acute exposure incidents like this will have occurred and influence the result. With large enough sample sizes, and demographic and geographic variables controlled, the last few days' worth of exposure should be relatively consistent between groups. Relative to an adult lifetime's worth of exposure.

Amtram
01-18-13, 05:34 PM
I will look, but my brain is a little fried at this particular moment. I should actually be unconscious, but there was a schedule conflict.

roseblood
01-26-13, 07:15 PM
So that's it? Not a single one of the arguments against the theory that ordinary lead levels contribute to ADHD symptoms and severity has been backed up by the people making them; not a single person has been able to answer the questions posed; not a single one of their statements stand up to scrutiny, and we're all just going to leave it there and forget about it?

If this thread were about a gene, it'd be a hundred pages long by now.

Tuberculosis, as explained in the lecture Amtram pointed me to, also runs in families. Genetic susceptibility is so extremely significant in determining who catches it, that at first it wasn't thought to be anything BUT genetic. If there had been an ideological pneumo-diversity movement, wanting everyone to think that TB was not in fact a net-negative, and that trying to cure or prevent it was an insult or waste of time, how much longer do you think it would have taken to figure out that it was preventable?

There seems to be a deep aversion to the thought that we or our children might be brain damaged, a sensibility reserved for this one organ alone. I feel it too, probably for different reasons than most, but I think the consequences of reacting with denial would be even more depressing and terrifying. "Either you deal with what is the reality, or you can be sure that the reality is going to deal with you." - Alex Haley

SweetCode
01-26-13, 08:41 PM
So that's it? Not a single one of the arguments against the theory that ordinary lead levels contribute to ADHD symptoms

I thought that it was a thread about the America's #1 hidden villain behind ADHD , I was building a light sign to call batman...

meadd823
01-27-13, 07:03 AM
So that's it? Not a single one of the arguments against the theory that ordinary lead levels contribute to ADHD symptoms and severity has been backed up by the people making them; not a single person has been able to answer the questions posed; not a single one of their statements stand up to scrutiny, and we're all just going to leave it there and forget about it?

If this thread were about a gene, it'd be a hundred pages long by now.

Tuberculosis, as explained in the lecture Amtram pointed me to, also runs in families. Genetic susceptibility is so extremely significant in determining who catches it, that at first it wasn't thought to be anything BUT genetic. If there had been an ideological pneumo-diversity movement, wanting everyone to think that TB was not in fact a net-negative, and that trying to cure or prevent it was an insult or waste of time, how much longer do you think it would have taken to figure out that it was preventable?

There seems to be a deep aversion to the thought that we or our children might be brain damaged, a sensibility reserved for this one organ alone. I feel it too, probably for different reasons than most, but I think the consequences of reacting with denial would be even more depressing and terrifying. "Either you deal with what is the reality, or you can be sure that the reality is going to deal with you." - Alex Haley


People are still exposed to TB every day. Treatments for it are generally more effective these days so fewer die from it .

I do not see ADHD as being caused by lead exposure - If is is caused by the sensitivity to lead that has been discussed already it is still genetic in origin and applies to a very small percentage of people who have ADD LIKE symptoms.

ADHD is believed to be genetic and effecting the frontal lobes - There is a Barkley video some where around here explaining this - I did the power point and it isn't bad even though I am not a Barkley fan


Besides being brain damaged dismisses a portion of the ADHD population that has high degrees of intelligence despite their ADHD impairments -where as having problems accessing the part of our brain responsible for certain functions like time management goes further in explaining why some one can be really intelligent and still be unable to arrive to any thing on time prepared.


So far the genetic cause is more plausible hence I am not denying the reality of ADHD I am unimpressed with the source martial provided in the initial post enough so that I do not feel the need to refute it with long drawn out scientific evidence when plenty is ready available in this section already.

If other people want to entertain the notion of being brain damaged by lead exposure I won't stand in their way - Who am I to tell others how to view their own ADHD.

roseblood
03-17-14, 11:17 AM
People are still exposed to TB every day. Treatments for it are generally more effective these days so fewer die from it .

I do not see ADHD as being caused by lead exposure - If is is caused by the sensitivity to lead that has been discussed already it is still genetic in origin and applies to a very small percentage of people who have ADD LIKE symptoms.

ADHD is believed to be genetic and effecting the frontal lobes - There is a Barkley video some where around here explaining this - I did the power point and it isn't bad even though I am not a Barkley fan.

Lead exposure also affect the frontal lobes, making them different in exactly the same way they are different in ADHD (because it is ADHD). Even the tiniest amount of lead exposure makes the frontal lobes - and the person's behaviour - more ADHD-like on average, which pushes certain people from sub-clinical symptoms to full-blown ADHD. Genes simply help determine how much of an effect the lead we're all exposed to, has on your frontal lobes' long-term development. Certain genes mean more lead is required to do the same amount of damage that someone else would gets from significantly less lead. Get rid of the lead still contaminating our soil and carried by many pregnant women, as well as all the other PFC-damaging factors (there are many, as the PFC's development is so easily disrupted), and suddenly the "genes for ADHD" will no longer be genes for ADHD, just as the gene for PKU is only a "gene for mental retardation" if the person is exposed to phenylalanine. In the absence of phenylalanine exposure, the intelligence of someone with PKU is completely unaffected by that gene.

ginniebean
03-17-14, 12:56 PM
Lead, posture, old sperm, parenting... Yikers, why is it never just the brain doing a silly walk?

On another note, John! Welcome back.

And, Why does Amtram always get to be a boy. I'm changing my nick for a month. I'm now ginnieboy!

SB_UK
03-22-14, 12:22 PM
Attention is the awareness of inattention.
~Krishnamurti~Feelings of pain.

nonADD = Unawareness of inattention disorder