Lead and Crime in Eastern Europe: A Hopeless Case

Tyler Cowen has an odd Drum-bait headline today:

Why is there no lead-homicide connection in Eastern Europe?

Children growing up in former communist CEE [Central and Eastern European] countries during the 1980s were subjected to horrific amounts of industrial pollution, including extreme levels of prolonged lead exposure. Since lead is theorized to be a primary culprit in exacerbating violent crime, you would assume there would be a sizeable discrepancy in the homicide rate between, say, former East Germany and West Germany, or Western Europe and Eastern Europe as a whole. But the difference in the homicide/violent crime rate is negligible, with many former communist CEE countries having a lower homicide rate than Western Europe. I suspect the same is true when comparing the rate of mental disorders, which is another malady that is supposedly influenced by exposure to high levels of industrial pollution.

The text is from a commenter at Slate Star Codex, who references an ancient Cato study titled “Environmental Problems Under Socialism.” As near as I can tell, it references lead twice: first to note that children from the Upper Silesia area of Poland have “five times more lead in the blood than children from Western European cities,” and second to relate a brief anecdote about officials in the Bulgarian city of Kardszhali who were reluctant to shut down a lead smelter even though it was causing “massive health problems to area residents.”

This doesn’t say anything at all about whether Eastern European lead levels during the 70s and 80s were higher than in Western Europe. How do we figure that out? Generally speaking the biggest source of lead poisoning during that era comes from auto exhaust, so the first thing you’d want to look at is per-capita lead emissions from gasoline combustion. Since Eastern Europe was relatively poor compared to Western Europe during this period, I’d expect lower lead emissions there, not higher, and that’s pretty much what the data shows. Here it is for five big Western and Eastern European countries:

Aside from all the usual measurement issues, there’s also a problem here with different population densities. Lead has its biggest effects where auto density is high, which probably means that Western Europe not only had higher overall lead levels, but that its effects were more concentrated. This would make Eastern Europe’s lead emissions even lower relative to Western Europe than the raw numbers suggest.

Ideally, of course, what you’d really like to see is measurements of blood lead levels, and for Western European countries these are often available. Eastern Europe, by contrast, is pretty much a black hole. However, here are some comparisons from a World Bank report that pulled together a very small number of studies of specific Eastern European locations:

These are very rough numbers. The studies themselves have tiny sample sizes, and all I could pull out of them was a sort of eyeball average of various bits and pieces. That said, there’s nothing special that catches my eye. By the mid-80s, Eastern Europe might have had slightly higher rates of lead poisoning than Western Europe, but not by a lot. And keep in mind that this is a period in which blood lead levels are changing very quickly everywhere thanks to the adoption of unleaded gasoline.

Bottom line: there are specific places in Eastern Europe that had very high lead levels up through the 1980s—usually due to mining, smelting, or lead-based industry of some kind—but overall lead levels seem to have been in the same ballpark as Western Europe. At a guess, this is because of two forces that worked in opposing directions: the fact that Eastern Europe was poor cut down on the amount of lead they produced, but lousy environmental rules increased the amount they allowed into the atmosphere.

Roughly speaking, then, lead levels appear to be about the same in Eastern and Western Europe, so there’s no special reason in the first place to think they should have noticeably different homicide or violent crime rates due to lead poisoning. And even if there were, I imagine that communist-era crime statistics in Eastern Europe are wildly unreliable if they even exist. And if good stats do exist, you still have the problem of trying to compare two very different kinds of policing cultures on opposite sides of the Iron Curtain. Given all this, it seems all but hopeless to seriously address the question originally posed about lead and homicide rates in Eastern Europe.

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