Are “Deaths of Despair” Related to Lead Poisoning?

Here’s something I want to toss out, even though I don’t have an answer to offer—or even a clue, really. It’s about lead.

People periodically ask me about whether lead might be responsible for some phenomenon or other. I’m generally very careful about this stuff. It’s possible that lead poisoning is responsible for lots of things, but in most cases the effect is likely to be (a) fairly small and (b) swamped by other factors anyway. That makes it all but impossible to measure, and if you can’t measure it you can’t really say anything about it.

The things that are easiest to measure are behaviors at the far end of the bell curve. Here’s why: if lead affects some behavior by a little bit, it will push the mean of the bell curve over by a point or two. Most of the time, this is just too small to measure. But the tail of the bell curve might be doubled or tripled in size. This is the case with violent crime, for example, which is why it’s feasible to correlate lead and crime.

What other behaviors are fairly rare, and therefore might increase by a large amount due to lead poisoning? For some reason, it recently occurred to me to be intrigued by the Case-Deaton study of “deaths of despair.” There are some technical problems with their original paper, but I think everyone agrees that even when those are corrected there’s still something going on. And that something is primarily affecting people who are about 50 years old.

The peak years for lead poisoning in the US were 1965-1975. People born in those years are now ages 43-53. Is there some kind of connection?

The fact that this doesn’t seem to be happening in other countries—which is pretty much the whole point of the Case-Deaton paper—suggests that lead may not be the culprit. There’s also the fact that it seems to affect whites more than blacks, which is the opposite of what you’d expect if lead was involved. At the same time, it’s possible that lead has an effect that only shows up if other conditions help it along. Who knows?

In any case, it seems like this might be worth a look. I’m not entirely sure how to look at it, though. Take tooth samples of folks who drink themselves to death to check for lead concentrations? That’s not especially likely. But maybe there are less intrusive ways of establishing whether there’s a correlation in the first place. If there is, it would be worth further study.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist 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 need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist 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 need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

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