Lead in gasoline blunted IQ of half the U.S. population, study says

2024-03-1022:21169140www.nbcnews.com

Leaded gas was banned in 1996, but exposure to the poison cost people born before then several IQ points on average, researchers estimated.

Exposure to leaded gasoline lowered the IQ of about half the population of the United States, a new study estimates.

The peer-reviewed study, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focuses on people born before 1996 — the year the U.S. banned gas containing lead.

Overall, the researchers from Florida State University and Duke University found, childhood lead exposure cost America an estimated 824 million points, or 2.6 points per person on average. 

Certain cohorts were more affected than others. For people born in the 1960s and the 1970s, when leaded gas consumption was skyrocketing, the IQ loss was estimated to be up to 6 points and for some, more than 7 points. Exposure to it came primarily from inhaling auto exhaust. 

The team behind the study used gas consumption data, population estimates and other data to calculate that as of 2015, more than 170 million Americans had had blood lead levels above 5 micrograms per deciliter in their early childhood years. 

Lead is a neurotoxin, and no amount of it is safe. Currently, 3.5 micrograms per deciliter is the reference value for blood lead levels to be considered high; the acceptable amount was once higher. 

Principal study author Michael McFarland, an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University and a faculty member of the university’s Center for Demography and Population Health, called the number of people affected by lead exposure “staggering.”

“This is important because we often think about lead as an issue for children, and of course it is,” he said. “But what we really wanted to know is what happens to those children who were exposed?”

In many cases, McFarland said, a 2 to 3 point IQ difference is nominal, unless an individual is on the lower side of IQ distribution.

“If you’re more toward cognitive impairment, a couple points can mean a lot,” he said.

But on a population basis, shifting the average IQ down even a small amount could have large consequences, said Sung Kyun Park, an associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. The entire bell curve shifts, he explained, with more of the population at what was once the extreme low end of IQ scores.

Lead used to be added to gasoline to help engines run more smoothly until other, safer additives replaced it. In addition to being linked to lower IQs, it has also been associated with heart and kidney disease.

Lead can be inhaled or ingested, with children particularly susceptible to its poisonous effects. Children’s blood lead levels have been dramatically lowered in the U.S. in recent decades, but lead exposure still happens, and Black children are exposed more often than white children. Monday’s study, too, estimated that most Black adults under age 45 experienced “considerably higher” levels of blood lead levels in early life than their white counterparts. 

The racial disparities are generally due to environmental contamination and infrastructure issues that affect drinking water in low-income and minority neighborhoods, with the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, one of the most egregious examples in recent years.

And while children are the most vulnerable to getting very ill from lead, the toxin’s damage can show up years later, Park said. Lead exposure is believed to put people at risk for chronic and age-related diseases, including cardiovascular disease and dementia.

“Lead is a never-ending story,” he said.

There are medical interventions available for children who have recently been exposed to high amounts of lead, but those wouldn’t work for adults born before 1996. Still, the study findings should not be a major cause for concern, McFarland said.

“There are a host of things that go into IQ,” he said. “This is one that is obviously negative, but if you also have a nurturing home environment, that helped your IQ.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By jjgreen 2024-03-1022:304 reply

    The chap who put lead in petrol was also an early enthusiast for the CFCs which put a hole in the ionosphere, thank you Mr Midgley Jr.

    • By aunty_helen 2024-03-111:341 reply

      While people will be quick to judge, it’s necessary to remember how much of a boon refrigeration and high octane gasoline was for human progress.

      Humanity is full of mistakes like DDT and lead makeup. We continue to make these mistakes today, but it’s important to know that we progress with technology.

      CFCs are no longer necessary and high octane unleaded now can be had at the pump.

      • By afavour 2024-03-112:161 reply

        IIRC the gas company execs were absolutely aware of the dangers of leaded gasoline and made sure that information never became public.

        Yes, it allowed a lot of progress. But society should have been able to make an informed decision about whether it was worth it.

        • By giantg2 2024-03-112:321 reply

          "IIRC the gas company execs were absolutely aware of the dangers of leaded gasoline and made sure that information never became public."

          Sounds like most disruptors, PI-based, and food companies today - Facebook algorithms, Uber's early safety/compliance/sexism issues, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if certain food related things become a big deal in a couple of decades. Stuff like hormones and meds in animals and xenohormones in packaging. Even things like synthetic food dyes have some evidence of hyper activity in children, to the point the EU is putting warning labels on some things.

          When the CEOs have their families avoiding their own products, that's a damn big warning that they know. It shouldn't be a surprise.

          • By ChainOfFools 2024-03-114:23

            The cycle keeps repeating in part because the people who do this kind of move fast and break (other people's) things crap in the beginning, whose behavior we excuse and paper over in the name of progress later on, are the ones who also accumulate commanding, NSA wealth and influence offstage. They thereby greatly contribute to setting the stage for future behavior like this, through their soft power influence - what sort of people they endorse, promote, and financially sponsor.

            It should matter who gets rich. People have for too long been naively (or foolishly) swallowing the elite-favored narrative that someone else's money is none of anyone's business; a dynamically imbalanced moral which may have been weakly defensible in a byegone world that was far less tightly integrated, consolidating and wealth-connected than it has become.

    • By nielsbot 2024-03-113:49

      I found numerous articles about him. I think this was on HN before: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-man-two-deadly...

    • By leeoniya 2024-03-111:062 reply

      ah yes, the "one-man environmental disaster"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

      • By BD103 2024-03-111:392 reply

        > Environmental historian J. R. McNeill stated that he "had more adverse impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history."

        • By ironmagma 2024-03-112:051 reply

          Only made possible by the millions going along with what that one individual did. This guy was like a hacker moving fast and breaking things, had no clue what he was doing. Nobody does when they build things for the first time.

          • By stemlord 2024-03-113:501 reply

            That speaks more negatively to that tired SV motto than it speaks positively to the leaded gasoline guy.

            • By ironmagma 2024-03-114:05

              Yes, it's not intended to be a positive sentiment, just an observation about the great organism that is all of humanity.

        • By EmuAGR 2024-03-112:16

          Maybe that quote should've referred to the first photosynthetic organism... (due mostly to reproduction than ability itself).

      • By noobermin 2024-03-111:19

        Dear god, reading that bio is a horror story. While you can blame Midgley somewhat he was definitely enabled by the oil companies.

    • By JoeAltmaier 2024-03-1022:511 reply

      Didn't he also invent dry-cleaning fluid? Flourine-based, powerful stuff.

      • By fancy_pantser 2024-03-110:351 reply

        Martinizing dry cleaning process was Henry Martin.

        • By JoeAltmaier 2024-03-1113:31

          Maybe I was thinking of Thomas Midgley Jr. Freon and leaded gasoline

  • By ClumsyPilot 2024-03-111:282 reply

    I noticed a disturbing patter - when we talk about costs of environmental laws, they are in dollars, but when we talk about damage, we never put a dollar amount on it.

    What is the total damage to the economy of making such a colossal number of people less smart, for the entire duration of their life?

    The cost must be colossal, in trillions. Imagine if 1% drop in IQ costs us 1% loss of GDP, in that case m, over the past decades, we have suffered more damage that the entire GDP of USA. Someone should be paying that!

    And someone in this thread has rightly pointed out, will microplastics be the same?

    • By downrightmike 2024-03-112:131 reply

      Low literacy rates end up costing Americans up to $2.2 trillion every year. Nationwide, on average, 79% of U.S. adults are literate in 2022.

      21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2022.

      54% of adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level.

      21% of Americans 18 and older are illiterate in 2022.

      https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statisti...

      • By mglikesbikes 2024-03-115:28

        If the US was an organism, what role would an under-educated X% play?

        You say it’s a “cost” but equal education obviously isn’t a priority in our country and I can’t help but wonder who benefits from such a high percentage of illiteracy (this is semi-rhetorical).

        I genuinely don’t think we’re tracking the cost appropriately nor implementing solutions with enough urgency; 10-15 years down the road this empire of ours is going to be far out-classed intellectually by countries that actually implement policy for the equitable benefit of everyone.

        If I’m off base I’d appreciate an education on this topic as it’s quite gross to think about our elite institutions being proponents of eugenics in the past[1] and how that likely spilled over into the world-building we did after WWII (Kissinger etc).

        Or put another way, how do we map “AI is going to save everyone” rhetoric to how history has actually gone, and what incentive do existing power structures have to change?

        [1] https://youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY?t=1095

    • By renewiltord 2024-03-112:06

      https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg...

      P. 78

      We do. Your observation likely reflects a data source selection error on your part.

  • By ipnon 2024-03-110:435 reply

    We should remember stories like this when we consider the future of AI. Midgley could only see the benefits to be gained. He did not have the foresight to see that seemingly inconsequential scientific and industrial decisions can have immeasurable outcomes.

    • By mullingitover 2024-03-111:301 reply

      > He did not have the foresight to see that seemingly inconsequential scientific and industrial decisions can have immeasurable outcomes.

      Lead toxicity wasn't some big unforeseeable surprise, there was over two millennia of documentation on the dangers of lead when Midgley kicked off the mass production of tetraethyl lead.

      It's better to just say the man was cursed. He also brought Freon to market. Arguably no living person has done as much environmental damage as he accomplished single-handedly. As Bill Bryson said, he had "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny."

      • By JKCalhoun 2024-03-112:26

        And where did I hear someone say that we should ban everything he ever touched — just in case.

    • By tdeck 2024-03-111:14

      He totally could foresee the dangers. He got lead poisoning in 1923 and had to take time off. Dozens of people in the plant where they were manufacturing the stuff got lead poisoning and had neurological symptoms. Several people died. It's not like there weren't massive warning signs that this substance was going to be a problem. This would be like if the AI you were trying to launch had killed 10 of your coworkers and driven 10 more of them insane, and also you decided to name it something deceptive so people didn't know there was AI in it.

    • By bastawhiz 2024-03-111:234 reply

      I mean, Midgley knew lead was dangerous. He suffered from lead poisoning himself. People in his plants died and came down with serious lead poisoning just a year after he had to step away because of his lead poisoning. He was directly informed about the risks of lead years in advance.

      Two years after he got lead poisoning, he did a demonstration where he huffed TEL and poured it on his hands and claimed he could do it every day without consequence. Nobody believed him, perhaps because it was no secret that lead exposure was dangerous. The state of New Jersey didn't believe it either and shut down his plant, and he later came down with lead poisoning again and had to take a leave of absence.

      So to your point, these were the actions of a man who saw people in his factories dying, came down with lead poisoning twice himself, and kept selling the stuff. That's not a lack of foresight, that's just greed. He just didn't care. The benefits he saw were "making a shitload of money".

      • By ChainOfFools 2024-03-114:29

        > he later came down with lead poisoning again and had to take a leave of absence.

        reminds me of the guy who made millions (billions?) selling identity theft protection theatre (LifeLock IIRC) by running an absurd ad campaign in which he put his own name and SSN in public advertisements for the service, and promptly had his identity stolen, and kept having stolen over and over for years.

        But with hundreds of millions in the bank selling this scam he likely had plenty of other resources to mitigate the damage, resources his millions of customers likely do not.

      • By metalcrow 2024-03-112:103 reply

        > he huffed TEL and poured it on his hands and claimed he could do it every day without consequence

        I can't imagine he knew about the dangers in that case. Even someone amazingly greedy would be unlikely to risk the very serious complications doing this would cause.

        • By bastawhiz 2024-03-1114:39

          I guess you could draw a line between "someone told you, you listened, and you chose not to internalize that information" and "your brain is too rotted out from lead poisoning to care about the dangers of lead poisoning"?

          If you yourself have to take a leave of absence (admitting the cause) and dozens of your employees become sick with the same thing (many of whom die), it's certainly not unknown. Whether it's unappreciated or ignored is different. In this case I don't think we can know for sure.

          I would speculate, though, that Midgley knew exactly what he was doing. After the state of NJ shut down his plant, the feds had it reopened. TEL was important for military purposes. Midgley knew that he found himself possessing a key ingredient for internal combustion. It's not often that you can insert yourself as a key component of an existing (fifteen year old!) industry. He knew he could put on a show and downplay the risks, and if he pulled it off he'd be rich like a Rockefeller.

        • By ttfkam 2024-03-114:53

          It's hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it.

      • By pvaldes 2024-03-119:18

        > he got lead poisoning twice > He just didn't care

        Morale: Don't follow the man with the seriously damaged IQ.

      • By nazka 2024-03-119:00

        People ready to make money this bad is frightening.

    • By lucasban 2024-03-111:01

      This applies to anything new, not just AI. It’s also important to have the appropriate level of caution, without fear mongering, and accept that even our best due diligence can be insufficient at times.

    • By 123yawaworht456 2024-03-111:44

      you people insert the current thing into the most peculiar contexts.

HackerNews