What accounts for the downturn in crime in New York City in the last half of the 1990s? Economist Rick Nevin has a short answer: Lead. That is, reducing the number of toddlers who have lead poisoning leads to fewer criminals when these kids come of age.

What makes Nevin’s work persuasive is that he has shown an identical, decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine countries.

“It is stunning how strong the association is,” Nevin said in an interview. “Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these countries was explained by lead.”

Lead levels in old housing is one source that has come under better control, particularly in cities such as New York that have attacked the problem aggressively, especially in poor neighborhoods. But lead in gasoline is another huge factor. In the US, lead in gasoline peaked in the early 70s and then started to decline, falling very sharply in the early 80s; it was nearly eliminated by 1987. In New York, lead levels plummeted in the early 1970s. The impact? Data show that between 1970 and 1974, the number of children heavily poisoned by lead fell by 80%. Fast-forward twenty years, and you have a plummeting crime rate. By contrast, in countries that have been behind the US in putting constraints in leaded gasoline, crime rates are soaring.

Other research that supports the lead-crime connection is out there but has garnered little attention:

Other evidence has accumulated in recent years that lead is a neurotoxin that causes impulsivity and aggression, but these studies have also drawn little attention. In 2001, sociologist Paul B. Stretesky and criminologist Michael Lynch showed that U.S. counties with high lead levels had four times the murder rate of counties with low lead levels, after controlling for multiple environmental and socioeconomic factors.

In 2002, Herbert Needleman, a psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh, compared lead levels of 194 adolescents arrested in Pittsburgh with lead levels of 146 high school adolescents: The arrested youths had lead levels that were four times higher.

Wow.

Naturally, I’ll now segue to the need to keep lead out of kids’ toys and gear. Granted, occasionally playing with a toy made with lead paint may not put a kid in danger of serious lead poisoning (unless he swallows it), but if we keep letting crappy lead toys and kids’ jewelry into the country, who knows what the cumulative effect could be? Why should we let foreign factory owners and careless importers undo what de-leading efforts have accomplished in the US? Let’s get the word out to the acting chair of the CPSC that we want our government to take a harder line against importers of lead-containing children’s gear.

Posted by MommaSteph.

I am greatly saddened to read news of the death of David Ritcheson.

In 2006, at 16 years old, David was the victim of a horrific hate crime at a party. His attackers, fellow teens at the party, have been convicted and given life sentences.

David was courageous enough to testify before the House Judiciary Committee against hate crimes. But he repeatedly had said that he was tired of being known only as “the kid” - the victim of this crime. And it was too much pressure that it seemed that the entire world knew the horrific details of his attack. So he decided to end his life.

I am sitting here weeping at my keyboard for this child that I never knew. Wondering if I, too, am contributing the the attention that he was so desperate to avoid. So why to I write this entry?

To the newsmedia. Are we ever going to have privacy for victims of crime, especially minor children?

To parents. The families of the attackers could not imagine that their children could have done this. But they did. It is never too late to teach your children tolerance and kindness. Start now.

To people in general. Is our society and our future really all about reality shows and tabloids and stories that depict the misery and pain of other human beings?

This morning I am wondering, what kind of world have I brought my children into�

To the family of David, I am very sorry for your loss.

Posted by Meganlux

Over here in Europe, it has been the headline story for the past two weeks. An English family was on vacation in Portugal, and their beautiful 4 year old daughter was kidnapped from their hotel room. A tragic story. Her website has seen over 50 million hits, and international celebrities such as Richard Branson and JK Rowling have offered over 2.5 million pounds (nearly 5 million USD!) for information leading to her safe return.

And now it has also turned into a “hot topic“around the world. Where it becomes controversial is that Madeline and her 2 younger siblings were sleeping alone in the room, while their parents were having dinner nearby.

Some have been quick to judge them as “bad parents”, and perhaps they are by current American standards. However, there are some cultural differences that I can see from being an American living and raising my kids in Europe, and I can honestly say I can see why they would have left their children sleeping while they dined very close by.

Let me start by saying that bad things occur here in Europe as well. The region where I live was traumatised by the Belgian pedophile problems some years back.� But generally, there is a stronger sense of safety over here than there is in the US.

The parents in this case are educated people - I believe they are both physicians. They certainly should “know better”. But, leaving your children to sleep in your hotel room is not uncommon over here. Whenever we travel to a “resort type” hotel with our children, we are usually offered a baby monitor that either we can carry with ourselves to dinner, or the reception will listen to for us. We are also offered a babysitter (additional fee) if we choose.

While the media has spun this to say that the parents just left their kids alone and went out, the parents have said that they were dining downstairs in the hotel complex, and one parent had gone every 30 minutes or so to check on them.

How to I personally feel about this case? On one hand, knowing the culture over here I can definitely see why they did it. On the other hand, even though I have often had this option, I am not comfortable leaving my kids alone and requesting a babysitter in our room is our well, my, preferred option. (That’s the American in me that often drives my European spouse crazy, but he has learnt not to fight me on these things!) In any case, my heart aches for this entire family.

But for now, the real focus should be on the safe return of this precious little girl.

Posted by Meganlux

That’s the law California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber is trying to get on the books.

Hm.  Is this a good idea?  Should we really start legislating the way we as parents, parent?  And how would a law like this be enforced anyway?

According to a survey of 500 adults in the Bay Area, 57 percent are opposed to the bill, while only 23 percent support a law make spanking illegal.  And I’d venture to bet none of these people condone child abuse.

If the goal of a law like this is to reduce deaths from infant and child abuse, is it realistic to think a law is going to do it?  Perhaps providing parents with parenting classes, giving them tools to deal with stressful situations in the heat of the moment would help.  But of course Ms. Lieber, who has no children of her own, isn’t suggesting anything like that.

The chances of a bill like this actually becoming law are slim, which I for one say is a good thing.  States need to focus their efforts on stopping real child abusers, and stop wasting their time and our money making ridiculous laws that simply spell out what anyone with an ounce of common sense already knows. 

God knows we don’t need one more thing to add to our parental guilt.

Posted by Pager12.

(via Salon.)

This morning I logged onto one of my favorite photography boards to see a very disturbing thread title. It was an urgent post, saying that other members had photos on another blog, and that the site seemed fishy. What were these people doing with all these photos of young children on their site, and how did they get them?

Most of the photos came from people perusing through albums in Flickr, an on-line photo sharing site.

Reading the thread, I stumbled accross a post about another site…a pedophile’s site. Or at least that’s what it appears to be. Without linking to it, the site is called little boys rule (if you want to see it, type in the title with www and dot com, and remove the spaces).

This is a legal site with pages of links to other people’s photos…most of these people probably don’t realize their children are being viewed by others to get their jollies. This just makes my stomach hurt.

So how do they get around it? It’s not child pornography. The legal criteria for child pornography is:

• it has to show sexual conduct
• depictions of genital arousal (so just genital photos don’t count)
• PRIMARY focus on genitals or anal area
• purposeful erotic posing

Because we have freedom of speech in the United States, these types of photos fall under that “legal zone”. I personally find it disgusting that there is nothing that can be done.

To protect your child from on-line pedophiles, there are a few things you can do.

(more…)

Hospital Infection:  A downtown Los Angeles hospital has closed its neonatal unit to new admissions because five babies have become infected with a virulent bacterium.  One baby likely died from the infection.

Sweet Lord:  An ongoing investigation is underway to determine if hundreds of babies were stolen from new mothers in the Ukraine to feed an international underground trade in stem cells and organs.

Some nice news, now, please: Heidi Klum says she has no regrets about having three children under three.  “We love that they will grow up close in age. This is what [husband] Seal and I have always wanted: a home filled with children’s laughter.”

Posted by MommaSteph.