On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:34:18 +0900, Tom Bridgeland
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> > We live about 14 months longer than people did a hundred years ago.
>> >
>> The average livespan here is 73 for women and 71 for men, it used to be
>> under 50.
>
>Lifespan for people who survived childhood is only slightly higher now
>than 100 years ago. The figure I saw recently was 14 months for adult
>life span.

I have the figures for England and Wales in front of me (from the Office
for National Statistics). In 1901-10: at birth men could expect to live to
48.5 years and women 52.4 years. If a boy lived to the age of 1 (i.e.
allowing for infant mortality), he could expect to live a further 55.7
years and a woman a further 58.3 years. If they made it to the age of 65,
men could expect to live 10.8 more years and women 12.0 more years.

Fast-forward to 1993-5, the latest stats I have available. At birth, men
can expect to live 74.1 years and women 79.4 years. At age 1, 73.6 and 78.8
more years respectively. At age 65, 14.6 and 18.3 more years respectively.

So you are correct that infant mortality does make a big difference to the
figures. But even when we allow for that, life expectancy has still
increased by around 18-20 years since 1900. At age 65, it has increased by
4-6 years.

Perhaps the situation is different in the US, but somehow I doubt it.

Cheers,

Jo