From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Tue Sep 04 2001 - 18:44:43 MDT
On 9/4/01 5:08 PM, "Dan Clemmensen" <dgc@cox.rr.com> wrote:
> Nope. I think the big five contributors (in decreasing order of
> cost-effectiveness of intervention) are:
Are we talking about the U.S. or the world?
> Smoking
> Alcohol
> Eating habits
Addiction behaviors. These are the easiest to quantify in terms of the cost
effectiveness of intervention. The ones below are not as intervention could
very well generate new costs that partially or completely counteract any
benefit.
> Driving
Driving is too narrow of a focus; it doesn't make sense to look at it like
this. Transportation would be a better one. Sure, there is something like
40,000 deaths annually in the U.S. driving cars, but depending on the
accounting, you would be shifting the loss somewhere else if you fixed this
problem. Also, it is by no means the number three leading cause of death.
> Firearms
As a contributor to death, this is so negligible as to be not worth
considering, unless you are applying it to governments and militaries.
According to most sources, firearms accidents are *way* down the list of
causes of death; in the U.S. it is only a thousand or two annually.
According to the U.S. government stats, accidents in aggregate are only the
fifth leading cause of death. In fact, of the top ten leading causes of
death, only two are not medical/disease related -- accidents (including
vehicular) and suicide.
>From everything I'm reading from the various government statistics, it would
seem that Jerry Mitchell is correct: Every significant cause of death is
related to aging and limitations in medical technology. Everything else in
aggregate is almost statistically insignificant in comparison.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:23 MST