This reminds me of a similar theory put forward by Edward de Bono a while back. He suggested it might be lack of zinc in the diet, caused by eating unleavened bread. He proposed shipping out Marmite to help.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/de-bonos-marmite-plan-for-...

"Unrest in the Middle East" is a blanket phrase so broad as to be meaningless. What specific conflict do you have in mind?

Keep in mind that the number of vehicles per capita is much lower in Iraq and Yemen (the only two countries you mention) than in the United States.

Your comment rubs me the wrong way since it speaks to a mindset where complicated geopolitical problems can be solved or explained by a simple hack. Don't use lead! Peace treaties to follow.

There's no law of the universe that says big problems must have complicated solutions. Checklists have prevented countless mistakes in aviation and medical care. Scurvy plagued sailors for centuries, but the cure was vitamin C. Until the mid-1800's, doctors killed many of their patients from infection because they didn't wash their hands after performing autopsies.[1]

Of course, banning lead in those countries will have a beneficial effect, but I don't think it will quell much unrest. The middle east was unstable well before the introduction of leaded gasoline. And as you said, car ownership isn't as common there.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Gasoline and diesel generators are all over the place.

I think the question of whether lead is a contributing factor in a seemingly endless cycle of violence is one worth answering.

I quite like the idea of solving complicated geopolitical problems with a simple hack. Sadly the twitter and elections don't seem to be doing the trick in the middle east though. The EU and similar worked quite well in Europe which was pretty much constantly at war previously.

> What specific [Middle East] conflict do you have in mind?

There are so many ....

> Keep in mind that the number of vehicles per capita is much lower in Iraq and Yemen

Certainly that's a datum to take into account (I'm not being sarcastic).

> Your comment ... speaks to a mindset where complicated geopolitical problems can be solved or explained by a simple hack.

Does it now?

If it were truly a simple hack, it would already be done, since the health benefits are well known.

Getting these countries to stop burning leaded gasoline sounds like a fairly hard problem to me, just from the fact that they keep doing it. A sibling poster mentions how many problems have had simple solutions, like vitamin C for scurvy, which is true in the abstract but they all took quite a lot of fighting to implement.

Now, I doubt that lead is a significant factor here. But even if it were and it could be demonstrated, would it really be "simple"?

I don't mean to sound glib, but the 2003 invasion of Iraq probably is a much bigger reason for the continued unrest in that country.

Syria isn't listed as using leaded gasoline, nor are Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Bahrain, Libya or Tunisia, and yet all of these have some degree of unrest/instability/violence/civil war.

The depleted uranium powder we scattered all over the countryside is worse than lead.

This was debunked in an article I saw recently, where it turned out that the data was cherrypicked pretty dramatically. Let me try and locate it.

It's pretty well established that lead was a factor, by multiple studies. I'm guessing it wasn't quite as sound a debunking as you remember?

The main problem with the study: it was only done in Western Europe and North America. It doesn't work when you try the idea on, say, Japan.