Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:33:21 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "gts"
>According to the table at the link below, life expectancy in the US was
only
>47.3 years in 1900. A hundred years later, in 2000, it was 76.9. That is a
>huge increase in only 100 years. Surely the discovery of penicillin and
>other medical advances are major reasons for the increase in longevity.
For the reasons you cite (plus some), life expectancy really cannot be
compared in the two groups since the populations are not co-equal.
Averages can be very misleading. In 1900, if a person survived the
childhood diseases (and in the case of women, childbirth), there was a very
good chance of being able to live a long life, and certainly as long as what
we call an "average life expectancy" today. And some much longer. Take a
look at the actual population schedules--ie, censuses--from 1850, when ages
were first reported, to 1900. The mortality schedules are also pretty
interesting. Not long ago I saw one woman's death reported as caused by
"change of life." LOL......I finally had proof that menopause is deadly.
Theola
|
|
|