Who would have guessed getting the lead out would reduce crime?

Over the past few years when crime statistics have come out, they have generally been lower than the year before. It's a curious trend.  Why as the world gains population, cities grow more crowded and the income gap grows, even during the worldwide economic collapse a few years ago, do crime statistics show a downward trend? It's a curious situation to which no one has been able to find an answer. The trend defies the general understanding. By all counts the rate of crime should be increasing.

R.  Nevin via the BBC

Now someone has come along with a surprisingly plausible explanation.  Researchers on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean have made a logical connection between lead in gasoline and crime. According to their research, 20 years after lead was first added to gasoline, crime increased at a comparative rate. Then, 20 years after producers removed lead from gasoline in the 1970s, the crime rate worldwide began dropping accordingly.

Lead has been blamed for many maladies in humans, and the researchers point to the fact that lead in the atmosphere reduces a brain's gray matter with resultant effects on behaviors such as impulse control. According to their logic those effects lead to more crimes. Other scientists disagree with that theory, questioning whether biology can be linked to crime.

Still, the research shows a remarkable parallel between the addition and reduction of lead in gasoline and crime and perhaps suggests at least part of the reason why against social odds, the rate of crime keeps dropping.

Here's the full story from the BBC

Relationship: It's complicated

Recently in the news there have been at least a couple of stories in which someone is complaining and asking why all the attention on illegal immigrants from Mexico when military veterans are being ignored. It's like, only one of those can be addressed at a time and the wrong choice was made all in an effort to yet again discredit our African-American president.

Now, in 2012 the U.S, population stood at 319 million. Of those, 4.3 million were employed by the federal government. Among those, 247,113 work for the department of Veterans Affairs. Another 18,000 persons work over at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Given those numbers, isn't it just possible the federal government can do two things at once? The problem is, the critics complaining about the priorities can't see that or are ignorning it for the sake of criticism. It's either one or the other and apparently taking care of Latin American children held in a shelter in Arizona is not as important as veterans, at least to those making the noise this week. It's doubtful that's the case among all the federal employees working in the trenches.

Maybe it's the stupidity, stupid

Headlines blare that U.S. House majority leader Eric Cantor lost a primary election to a more extreme tea bagger and pundits lined up to give it all meaning. Can the Republic stand?

It's called an upset, but that's just blown dust like in sports when the team the experts didn't pick ahead of time wins the actual game. And calling the winner an unknown, mostly because the press which holds the key to known or unknown, simply paid him no attention having all but ignored the primary,  tacitly acknowledging Cantor the winner a long time ago.

Cantor, who reportedly spent something like $5 million to his opponent's $300,000, had polls showing him winning with as much as 62 percent of the vote. The pollster he believed was the same one who predicted Romney would win in 20012.

Lots of reasons have been offered for the loss. Cantor wasn't extreme enough for the tea baggers; Democrats crossed over figuring it would be easier to defeat the tea bagger in the general election; Cantor's stand on immigration wasn't in line with his constituents' thinking. A day later at least one pundit gang decided the vote was all about universal dislike for immigration reform. While it is an important issue, it's also difficult to believe a majority of voters are all that concerned over an idealistic progression.

Remix: Walter 'I'm on fire'

With better sound and lighting in horizontal format.

Two part harmony

Newest member of the E-Street Band.

Encounter a bear? Just walk on by

A woman suffered severe injuries after a grizzly attacked her while she was running along a trail on the huge military base on the outskirts of Anchorage last week. According to reports she did everything right, following the general advice of remaining calm, looming large and backing away, eventually playing dead if the bear actually attacks and grabs you. None of it worked except that she could have been killed if she had not played dead. The bear eventually left her and she made it to a road where rescue followed.

In the aftermath of the attack, an Anchorage outdoors writer who has almost made a living writing about and postulating about bear attacks, offered a newer method for dealing with a potential bear attack. He does write with some credibility given his experience with the subject and his own encounter when a grizzly grabbed his leg and he fought it off with a handgun.

His suggestion deals mostly with urban bears that are accustomed to people on the various running and bicycling trails around the city. According to his numbers, there are 65 grizzlies and about 250 black bears prowling within city limits.

Walter, the stages of wanting.

Because there hasn't been one in a while. This is Walter letting me know he wants something. There are only four choices, food, water, play, out, but he can be very insistent.

Even more insistent.

A little more insistent.

DEMAND!