There is now enough statistical proof that lead is the prominent cause of crime.
Crime rates and lead concentrations are extremely well correlated everywhere: the more lead in the environment, the more crimes will occur.
Furthermore, it is scientifically proven that lead has a very negative impact on the brain, killing gray matter and impairing neuronal communication.
Unfortunately, this theory hasn't been taken seriously by the government yet because it doesn't serve any political agenda.
The fact that lead is poisonous is definitely taken by the government seriously, and for quite some time. The hypothesis that crime is caused by lead is not, and it is not proven by correlation. I bet if you scan through millions of data series available on everything from wool production in New Zealand to average thickness of hairs of dogs in the USA, you could find a series that correlates very well with the crime data over the last century.
Did you know, for example, that US stock market is driven by butter production in Bangladesh? Here it goes: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/199...http://business.time.com/2009/04/16/the-bangladeshi-butter-p...
Scientific proof of the cause IMHO needs much more than even very nice correlation.
The EPA takes lead somewhat seriously. To the extent that every contractor in the U.S. has to account for it when doing even moderate amounts of home renovation.
There is now enough statistical proof that lead is the prominent cause of crime. Crime rates and lead concentrations are extremely well correlated everywhere: the more lead in the environment, the more crimes will occur. Furthermore, it is scientifically proven that lead has a very negative impact on the brain, killing gray matter and impairing neuronal communication. Unfortunately, this theory hasn't been taken seriously by the government yet because it doesn't serve any political agenda.