[stevvooe]

It seems you are trying hard to find something in my statement with which to refute. I was merely pointing out that the GP's conclusions are probably incomplete, given the data we have on lead.

Most of my previous comments were quite non-committal. For instance, the phrase "lead-soil levels seem to have some negative effect" was cherry-picked for your analysis, and given much stronger meaning than intended. First, let's examine the word choice of "seem". It means "give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality." This modifies the statement, to imply that the data "gives the impression" that there is "some negative effect". This is a much weaker statement than a hypothesis on the effect of lead-soil levels on poverty-stricken neighborhood. Perhaps, that statement would have been more clear if written as, "lead-soil levels seem to have an effect on crime". The implication from the sentence that follows is that the value of "some" is "crime".

It very well could be that lack of political power caused lead-producing activities to be concentrated in low-income neighborhoods. However, the issue at hand is not that lead-soil levels cause poverty; it's that lead-soil levels increase the incidence of crime. This point may not have been clear, as conceded above.

Indeed, correlation does not imply causation, but we know much about the health effects of lead [1] and its impact on decision making. We know that the correlation of crime rates with increasing and decreasing lead-levels, in a variety of situations, throughout many policies and governments, holds. We know both a pathway and have a strong correlation. Dismissing this as happenstance is unwise.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Health_effects