I’ve been meaning to post about life expectancy since a friend asked me about it recently. Now I don’t have to. Bryan has posted an excellent analysis of the situation.
-
Recent Comments
Closer to understand… on No-Knead Bread nathan on Self Education In the News: 2008 Ju… on Maple Pecans dpcrouse on KoMo Fidibus 21 beth on Chocolate Ice Cream beth on Chocolate Ice Cream brianglass on Self Education Michele on Self Education Category Cloud
Nourishing BlogsArchives
- July 2009
- June 2009
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
Meta
Pages
Thanks Brian. While I found that the cancer death rate has tripled since 1900, what I haven’t checked yet is how much larger the over 50 population is now versus then. Since cancer is a disease of aging, and the over 50 population is likely larger now than then, that will likely explain part of the increase. But I also have to wonder how many modern deaths of cancer patients are attributed to other causes like “septicemia” or cachexia when in reality it was cancer that weakened these people so much to leave them vulnerable?
I agree with Bryan’s insights. While I find these life expectancy charts interesting, I think it’s hard to draw conclusions from them. I am a Nourishing Traditions follower, and I do indeed think that many of the diseases of the 20C have been exacerbated by the modern diet, but I don’t think the life expectancy/cause of death charts support my belief. If a lot more people are living to 60 in 2005, and top three killers of folks from 1900 have been nearly eliminated, then it just leaves room for other diseases to kill people! I mean the death rate is 100 percent. Everybody dies.