
Another article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2 ... -epidemic/


...or all the siphoning in the seventies!westernair wrote:Paint chips when we were yonger...


No , its 86 & 5/3rd %.... it's on the web, and the web is never wrongkrick3tt wrote:87.5% of statistics are made up.



Did you guys even read the article?I "love" useless graphs like that. Is there any real link between the two? They aren't even on the same time line- 1937 to 1986 vs 1960 to 2009. Ugghh.
Agreed fully, especially on the internet. But that leaves 12.5% as legit, even by your numbers. And of course, we're all just guessing at that percentage. What's that prove?87.5% of statistics are made up.

Duh! Of course you did! It's the Internet.I made up the 87.5%

I didn't read the article, just looked at the graph and it struck one of my pet-peeves. Like graphs that don't show a zero and claim "75% increase" or whatever. Why not show the 23 year lag, that would be interesting.undysworld wrote:Did you guys even read the article?
It explains the 23 year difference pretty clearly. I thought it was a pretty interesting correlation, and reasonably well established by the differing time frames within which each area reduced lead-fuel usage. FWIW, I think this is a very interesting article.