"Poisoned" is not defined by your contribution to society though. I could be poisoned by carbon monoxide then get some fresh air and be fine for the rest of my life but it doesn't change that I was still definitely poisoned.

There was a massive crime wave as those generations entered adulthood...

Is that a result of lead or the policies created in the 1970s that helped cause a massive increase in single-parent homes among those in poverty? There are a lot of factors that contributed to that crime wave. The Great Society started by Johnson and expanded by Nixon likely has had a far bigger effect than simply lead. It’s an area of study though that is plagued by politics and stifled by political correctness. It’s much easier to simply blame it on lead. But considering that lead was around in unhealthy levels long before that generation entered adulthood, one must look at what changed in the socio-welfare-cultural structure preceding that “massive crime wave.” But, to do that would call into question a generation of social policy which is very uncomfortable for many.

It fairly closely tracked both lead exposure in both time frame and location. So, while no single factor was completely responsible lead had a major impact.

> If entire populations were 'poisoned' in the 70s and continued to contribute to society without noticing a severe decline in productivity, the meaning of the word loses its meaning.

There may have been a severe decline in productivity (and peacefulness, well-being, etc). It's easy to see acute direct effects of poisoning; it's really hard to know for sure if these levels of lead exposure caused violent crime, but people have made a plausible argument that they did. See wikipedia:

> A 2007 report published by The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, authored by Jessica Wolpaw Reyes of Amherst College, found that between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime". — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis

I don't care what word folks use, but I think there's enough evidence of negative consequences that we should ensure that the lead exposure of the '70s is never repeated—in Flint, in the other cities the article mentioned, or anywhere else.