<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Causes of death: 1900 and&#160;2010</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html</link>
	<description>Brain candy for Happy Mutants</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 00:49:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Marsh</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1463710</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Marsh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2012 04:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1463710</guid>
		<description>Pie Graph: Seriously if you are representing and comparing percentages of a total, you use a pie graph. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pie Graph: Seriously if you are representing and comparing percentages of a total, you use a pie graph. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gvanderleun</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1463526</link>
		<dc:creator>gvanderleun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1463526</guid>
		<description>It is an outrage that &quot;all causes of death still add up to 100%. That is no progress at all!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is an outrage that &#8220;all causes of death still add up to 100%. That is no progress at all!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Analog Kid</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1463353</link>
		<dc:creator>Analog Kid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1463353</guid>
		<description>The real question here is has cancer increased across the board, age-wise, or is it just the fact that we&#039;ve extended our lifespan and the longer you live, the more chance you have of getting cancer.  It&#039;d be really interesting to see cancer rates by age groups.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The real question here is has cancer increased across the board, age-wise, or is it just the fact that we&#8217;ve extended our lifespan and the longer you live, the more chance you have of getting cancer.  It&#8217;d be really interesting to see cancer rates by age groups.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Analog Kid</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1463352</link>
		<dc:creator>Analog Kid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1463352</guid>
		<description>3rd femurs?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>3rd femurs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Antinous / Moderator</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1462993</link>
		<dc:creator>Antinous / Moderator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1462993</guid>
		<description>Well, people didn&#039;t live on HFCS in those days.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, people didn&#8217;t live on HFCS in those days.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JDubs</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1462611</link>
		<dc:creator>JDubs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1462611</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m talking type one, what used to be called juvenile diabetes. That would kick in long before senility or gastro.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m talking type one, what used to be called juvenile diabetes. That would kick in long before senility or gastro.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Red Pill Junkie</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1462549</link>
		<dc:creator>Red Pill Junkie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1462549</guid>
		<description> And let&#039;s not even go with &#039;Terrorism&#039; ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> And let&#8217;s not even go with &#8216;Terrorism&#8217; ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andreas Beer</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1462467</link>
		<dc:creator>Andreas Beer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1462467</guid>
		<description>no suicides in 1900 - they must have been really happy back then ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>no suicides in 1900 &#8211; they must have been really happy back then ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sparg</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461833</link>
		<dc:creator>Sparg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461833</guid>
		<description>He&#039;s gotta have his dip-tet, honey.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#8217;s gotta have his dip-tet, honey.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Preston Sturges</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461652</link>
		<dc:creator>Preston Sturges</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461652</guid>
		<description>In the old days if you were young man dissatisfied with life you were expected to hit the road.  by the time someone was 20 they might have been a lumberjack, crewed on freighter, and worked a half dozen other jobs. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the old days if you were young man dissatisfied with life you were expected to hit the road.  by the time someone was 20 they might have been a lumberjack, crewed on freighter, and worked a half dozen other jobs. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IronEdithKidd</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461543</link>
		<dc:creator>IronEdithKidd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461543</guid>
		<description>Sure seems like it should be included.  Even if it&#039;s listed as homicide (also missing).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sure seems like it should be included.  Even if it&#8217;s listed as homicide (also missing).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister44</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461443</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister44</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461443</guid>
		<description> Oh and the scandals where Soylent Green deaths are covered up under the heading of being &#039;recycled&#039; rather than dying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Oh and the scandals where Soylent Green deaths are covered up under the heading of being &#8216;recycled&#8217; rather than dying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Red Pill Junkie</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461424</link>
		<dc:creator>Red Pill Junkie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461424</guid>
		<description>Shouldn&#039;t  &#039;War&#039; appear in the graph?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shouldn&#8217;t  &#8216;War&#8217; appear in the graph?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chgoliz</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461404</link>
		<dc:creator>chgoliz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461404</guid>
		<description>Looking at the numbers themselves, the relatively minimal gain in heart disease from 137.4 to 192.9, considering the much more substantial gain in cancer during the same time period, is actually quite surprising.

We&#039;re living long enough for cancers to take hold, that seems clear.  But heart disease hasn&#039;t mushroomed in the same way.

We&#039;ve just cut away most of the other killers via vaccinations and medication so it stands out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looking at the numbers themselves, the relatively minimal gain in heart disease from 137.4 to 192.9, considering the much more substantial gain in cancer during the same time period, is actually quite surprising.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re living long enough for cancers to take hold, that seems clear.  But heart disease hasn&#8217;t mushroomed in the same way.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve just cut away most of the other killers via vaccinations and medication so it stands out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ambiguity</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461339</link>
		<dc:creator>Ambiguity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461339</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Our previously steady increase in life expectancy has stalled and may even be reversed  &lt;/blockquote&gt;

In my looking at the issue (pouring over census data and trying to correct for things like wars  in order to engage an acquaintance MD in discussion) -- ie., slightly informed but not rigorous -- it looks like we actually hit the knee of the curve around 1950, at which time we started spending more and more (approching exponential) for less and less. One can always posit some kind of black swan or &lt;i&gt;deus ex machina&lt;/i&gt; that will sweep away even the the concept of death, but the data actually suggest that, lacking such an intervention, we&#039;ve been laboring under diminishing returns for over 60 years.

In other words, if the Divine Singularity doesn&#039;t show up, we&#039;re all going to die (statistically speaking) about when we could be expected from current conditions, give or take a few years. Sorry Ray.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Our previously steady increase in life expectancy has stalled and may even be reversed  </p></blockquote>
<p>In my looking at the issue (pouring over census data and trying to correct for things like wars  in order to engage an acquaintance MD in discussion) &#8212; ie., slightly informed but not rigorous &#8212; it looks like we actually hit the knee of the curve around 1950, at which time we started spending more and more (approching exponential) for less and less. One can always posit some kind of black swan or <i>deus ex machina</i> that will sweep away even the the concept of death, but the data actually suggest that, lacking such an intervention, we&#8217;ve been laboring under diminishing returns for over 60 years.</p>
<p>In other words, if the Divine Singularity doesn&#8217;t show up, we&#8217;re all going to die (statistically speaking) about when we could be expected from current conditions, give or take a few years. Sorry Ray.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Moss</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461336</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Moss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461336</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t forget the change in and standardization of coroner reports.  This didn&#039;t happen until the 1920s, 1930s or so and changed what people were dying from by giving it a new name.  

Yes I&#039;m lazy, you want fact checking?  DIY.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t forget the change in and standardization of coroner reports.  This didn&#8217;t happen until the 1920s, 1930s or so and changed what people were dying from by giving it a new name.  </p>
<p>Yes I&#8217;m lazy, you want fact checking?  DIY.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: colowww</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461315</link>
		<dc:creator>colowww</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461315</guid>
		<description>According to my dad a MD, absolutely a lot of people use to die before they got old enough to get cancer or heart disease. He said is we all lived long enough we would all get cancer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to my dad a MD, absolutely a lot of people use to die before they got old enough to get cancer or heart disease. He said is we all lived long enough we would all get cancer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Florian Bösch</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461314</link>
		<dc:creator>Florian Bösch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461314</guid>
		<description>We&#039;re probably doing much better on heart disease and cancer than 110 years ago. However, both cardiovascular problems and cancer get more likely due to aging, and people do get older today and die of fewer other things. In other words, cancer/cardiovascular issues where not the problem they are today 110 years ago, because other things did people in before that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;re probably doing much better on heart disease and cancer than 110 years ago. However, both cardiovascular problems and cancer get more likely due to aging, and people do get older today and die of fewer other things. In other words, cancer/cardiovascular issues where not the problem they are today 110 years ago, because other things did people in before that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChickieD</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461306</link>
		<dc:creator>ChickieD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461306</guid>
		<description>Planet Money did a great podcast on this. Check it out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Planet Money did a great podcast on this. Check it out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ImmutableMichael</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461282</link>
		<dc:creator>ImmutableMichael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461282</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s a great table showing causes of death in a particular English village from the 16th or 17th century  in the book of Jonathon Miller&#039;s &quot;Body in Question&quot;. I don&#039;t have it in front of me, but I do remember that &quot;Planet&quot; and &quot;Rising of the Lights&quot; were both more deadly than cancer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s a great table showing causes of death in a particular English village from the 16th or 17th century  in the book of Jonathon Miller&#8217;s &#8220;Body in Question&#8221;. I don&#8217;t have it in front of me, but I do remember that &#8220;Planet&#8221; and &#8220;Rising of the Lights&#8221; were both more deadly than cancer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Petzl</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461215</link>
		<dc:creator>Petzl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461215</guid>
		<description> I noticed that too.  I&#039;m suspicious of 1900 data set vis a vis suicide. common sense says it would be higher in 1900 than present day.  Could be labeling (ie, &quot;accident&quot;=suicide), conscious omission from study, coroner consciously miscategorizing...  i mean, there&#039;s no &quot;crime/murder&quot; category in either chart (the murder rate would be higher than the crime rate in 1900 or 2010, no?)

while we&#039;re being morbid, here&#039;s a suicide fun fact: in Japan, the suicide rate much &quot;higher&quot; in part because police very often categorize as suicide murders that don&#039;t have an evident perpetrator. (they don&#039;t like to have &quot;open&quot; cases over there, it mucks with their high-90s success %.)  so they often won&#039;t risk it: if the case looks dubious, why not just chalk it up to suicide.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> I noticed that too.  I&#8217;m suspicious of 1900 data set vis a vis suicide. common sense says it would be higher in 1900 than present day.  Could be labeling (ie, &#8220;accident&#8221;=suicide), conscious omission from study, coroner consciously miscategorizing&#8230;  i mean, there&#8217;s no &#8220;crime/murder&#8221; category in either chart (the murder rate would be higher than the crime rate in 1900 or 2010, no?)</p>
<p>while we&#8217;re being morbid, here&#8217;s a suicide fun fact: in Japan, the suicide rate much &#8220;higher&#8221; in part because police very often categorize as suicide murders that don&#8217;t have an evident perpetrator. (they don&#8217;t like to have &#8220;open&#8221; cases over there, it mucks with their high-90s success %.)  so they often won&#8217;t risk it: if the case looks dubious, why not just chalk it up to suicide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CH</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461214</link>
		<dc:creator>CH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461214</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s what I&#039;m counting on! I decided dying is just sooo old fashioned, just need medicine to catch up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m counting on! I decided dying is just sooo old fashioned, just need medicine to catch up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CH</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461209</link>
		<dc:creator>CH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461209</guid>
		<description>Yep... and if and when we are able to mostly prevent and cure heart disease then cancer would be the one to off most of us. And when the glorious day comes when we totally beat that cancer&#039;s ass (well... there is a lot of cancer asses to beat, we do have given some of them already a nice beating...) it will be interesting to see what will then be the &quot;big killer&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep&#8230; and if and when we are able to mostly prevent and cure heart disease then cancer would be the one to off most of us. And when the glorious day comes when we totally beat that cancer&#8217;s ass (well&#8230; there is a lot of cancer asses to beat, we do have given some of them already a nice beating&#8230;) it will be interesting to see what will then be the &#8220;big killer&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bzishi</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461210</link>
		<dc:creator>bzishi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461210</guid>
		<description>Has the suicide rate decreased? I checked &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/homicide-and-suicide-america-1900-1998&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;two&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Suicide%20Among%2015%20to%2024%20Year%20Olds%20by%20State%201900%20to%202000.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sources&lt;/a&gt; briefly. It appears that the trend for suicide rate has increased slightly for all ages, while the suicide rate of the young has gone up significantly, especially with young men. 

This is consistent with what I understand as the major cause of suicide, which is social isolation. In the past, large families and closer social ties with friends and coworkers made it harder for an individual to become isolated. Today it is trivially easy. This is also consistent to why the developed world has a higher suicide rate than the developing world. More money spreads people apart, less money brings them together.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has the suicide rate decreased? I checked <a href="http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/homicide-and-suicide-america-1900-1998" rel="nofollow">two</a> <a href="http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Suicide%20Among%2015%20to%2024%20Year%20Olds%20by%20State%201900%20to%202000.pdf" rel="nofollow">sources</a> briefly. It appears that the trend for suicide rate has increased slightly for all ages, while the suicide rate of the young has gone up significantly, especially with young men. </p>
<p>This is consistent with what I understand as the major cause of suicide, which is social isolation. In the past, large families and closer social ties with friends and coworkers made it harder for an individual to become isolated. Today it is trivially easy. This is also consistent to why the developed world has a higher suicide rate than the developing world. More money spreads people apart, less money brings them together.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlexG55</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461207</link>
		<dc:creator>AlexG55</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461207</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think that many people died of chickenpox. It&#039;s not a common cause of death now in countries that don&#039;t vaccinate against it, and doctors don&#039;t prescribe antivirals for it- or anything other than medicines for the symptoms, which they probably had in 1900. The only difference I can see is that you were in more trouble if you scratched and it got infected.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that many people died of chickenpox. It&#8217;s not a common cause of death now in countries that don&#8217;t vaccinate against it, and doctors don&#8217;t prescribe antivirals for it- or anything other than medicines for the symptoms, which they probably had in 1900. The only difference I can see is that you were in more trouble if you scratched and it got infected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlexG55</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461205</link>
		<dc:creator>AlexG55</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461205</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s still a legal term in Britain. It&#039;s one of the standard inquest verdicts- I believe it&#039;s when the deceased did something that could reasonably be expected to kill them, but without intending to kill themselves. The case of it I can remember hearing of is when a guy tried to relieve himself on the third rail...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s still a legal term in Britain. It&#8217;s one of the standard inquest verdicts- I believe it&#8217;s when the deceased did something that could reasonably be expected to kill them, but without intending to kill themselves. The case of it I can remember hearing of is when a guy tried to relieve himself on the third rail&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Smith</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461179</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461179</guid>
		<description>Accidents cure cancer. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Accidents cure cancer. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: niktemadur</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461166</link>
		<dc:creator>niktemadur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461166</guid>
		<description>The Milkmen may be Dead (long live the Dead Milkmen), but their spirit lives on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Milkmen may be Dead (long live the Dead Milkmen), but their spirit lives on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: justine</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461102</link>
		<dc:creator>justine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461102</guid>
		<description>I love being able to see stats like this! So interesting..keeping the historical context in mind.

People have already commented on some of this...

 Of course all the suicides are being lumped into accidents in the 1900 stats. Suicide was COMPLETLY taboo, religiously and socially, in many parts of the world in 1900. It still is of course, but it was then very much the case in Europe and North America. Suicide meant you were denied normal burial...which, to overwhelmingly religious families, meant banishment from the afterlife/the comfort of your dead family FOR ALL ETERNITY. Loving families would lie through their teeth so that members could avoid this fate . All families feared...quite rightly...the taint of suicide, and would have lied to preserve surviving family member&#039;s  prospects for marriage, employment and professional advancement.

I agree that cardiovascular disease and cancer are more common now. Some of that is surely our long, relatively safe, life. We avoid infection and trauma long enough to become prey to the slow killers. The 5300 year old ice man (Otzi) carried the signs of cardiovascular problems, so that health concern is nothing like new.

I think it&#039;s important to remember that cancer was  greatly stigmatized in even the very recent past, so likely greatly underreported in 1900. It was badly understood, a &quot;wasting disease&quot;, and a source of social embarrassment. Some forms mimicked STDs, whether they were related or not, and the common notion of everything from mental health to promiscuity to criminality to chronic disease &quot;running in families&quot; meant people routinely hid all variety of problems, including long-term health issues, from public view and even from doctors.

I know of several cases in my Canadian extended family (both blood and in-law) where people denied or hid cancer until it killed them. I doubt these folks were unique to their time (the 40&#039;s, 50&#039;s and 60&#039;s) and expect things were worse in the decades before. Autopsy was nothing like normal in 1900, so anyone whose cancer did not involve large, obvious tumours could easily have had their death attributed to something else.

Was childbirth lumped into accidents too? I know childbirth was getting safer toward the end of the 19th century, but expect it still claimed a significant number of lives in 1900. Was it too embarassing to discuss/document?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love being able to see stats like this! So interesting..keeping the historical context in mind.</p>
<p>People have already commented on some of this&#8230;</p>
<p> Of course all the suicides are being lumped into accidents in the 1900 stats. Suicide was COMPLETLY taboo, religiously and socially, in many parts of the world in 1900. It still is of course, but it was then very much the case in Europe and North America. Suicide meant you were denied normal burial&#8230;which, to overwhelmingly religious families, meant banishment from the afterlife/the comfort of your dead family FOR ALL ETERNITY. Loving families would lie through their teeth so that members could avoid this fate . All families feared&#8230;quite rightly&#8230;the taint of suicide, and would have lied to preserve surviving family member&#8217;s  prospects for marriage, employment and professional advancement.</p>
<p>I agree that cardiovascular disease and cancer are more common now. Some of that is surely our long, relatively safe, life. We avoid infection and trauma long enough to become prey to the slow killers. The 5300 year old ice man (Otzi) carried the signs of cardiovascular problems, so that health concern is nothing like new.</p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s important to remember that cancer was  greatly stigmatized in even the very recent past, so likely greatly underreported in 1900. It was badly understood, a &#8220;wasting disease&#8221;, and a source of social embarrassment. Some forms mimicked STDs, whether they were related or not, and the common notion of everything from mental health to promiscuity to criminality to chronic disease &#8220;running in families&#8221; meant people routinely hid all variety of problems, including long-term health issues, from public view and even from doctors.</p>
<p>I know of several cases in my Canadian extended family (both blood and in-law) where people denied or hid cancer until it killed them. I doubt these folks were unique to their time (the 40&#8242;s, 50&#8242;s and 60&#8242;s) and expect things were worse in the decades before. Autopsy was nothing like normal in 1900, so anyone whose cancer did not involve large, obvious tumours could easily have had their death attributed to something else.</p>
<p>Was childbirth lumped into accidents too? I know childbirth was getting safer toward the end of the 19th century, but expect it still claimed a significant number of lives in 1900. Was it too embarassing to discuss/document?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Preston Sturges</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2012/06/27/causes-of-death-1900-and-2010.html#comment-1461097</link>
		<dc:creator>Preston Sturges</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=167886#comment-1461097</guid>
		<description>&quot;I Wanna Die By Misadventure&quot;  by Lenny and Ziggy

http://youtu.be/AuOB0hVOOXM</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I Wanna Die By Misadventure&#8221;  by Lenny and Ziggy</p>
<p><a href="http://youtu.be/AuOB0hVOOXM" rel="nofollow">http://youtu.be/AuOB0hVOOXM</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
