Re: [OT] I need a reality check

From: "Doug Evans" <devans@nebraska.edu>

> I sometimes wonder a similar statistical thing when I hear of casualty
> reports. It's decidedly morbid, but the stateside mortality rate for
the
> age groups involved hardly would be zero, in spite of the relatively
> healthy, competent, and conscientious sample involved.

The mortality rate for US soldiers in Iraq is less than the mortality
rate amongst the general population in the USA by about 20%.

Factor in the better average health and fitness, the age group, the
male:female ratio etc and it becomes about 2 times higher than the
same group in the US.

Factor in the dangers of a military career (driving heavy vehicles,
skydiving, handling explosives etc) and it becomes comparable with the
same occupation in the US. I can't find enough data to say whether
less than or greater than.

>From http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/013521.html

The latest casualties brings to 656 the number of US troops killed in
action in Iraq

The total number of deaths is higher, because over 350 have been killed
in auto accidents, died of natural causes etc.

To put things into perspective, the age-adjusted death-rate for the US
population as a whole for 2001 was 854.1 per 100,000, or over
1400 for a comparable period (16 months and 125,000 people). The death
rate for males 25-34 for the same period was about 300, those
35-44 about 450. (Source : NCHS Fact Sheet 2003).
There is no data specifically for the mix of people in the armed
services, who are generally fitter and healthier than the general
population, and a mix of male and female, but even in peacetime engage
in risky activities, such as driving cross-country,
skydiving, trekking in bad terrain, and handling explosives.
Of course such statistics mean nothing if it's your son, or your
daughter, or your father or mother who's died.
The figures for 2001 are also slightly elevated (though by less than
1%), due to the 3000+ people killed on 9/11.