We also don't need environmentalist drivel that has no hope of being scientifically proven on the front page of HN, along with a vocal minority waiting to pounce on anyone that questions the validity of such nonsense. Yet, somehow it winds up there.
I'm sure you have at least as much research and data backing your hypothesis as this article does. Please do link it so we can take a look for ourselves.
I'm sure you don't just have an unreasoning, politically-motivated, knee-jerk hatred of anything that strikes you as "environmentalist." That would be silly, after all.
That's just it: this article presents no data showing a definitive link between the two. Show me some evidence of that, and I'll be happy to agree with it. I agree with facts; not politically motivated opinions. It shows that one thing happened, and another thing happened. The tie (or, the much hated term "correlation") between the two is a stretch at best.
See comments elsewhere about the effects observed when lead was removed from gasoline in different geographical areas at different times. The correlation is strong enough to be suggestive of a causal link -- so strong, in fact, that the burden of proof lies on those (e.g., yourself) who claim that there is no causal link.
