Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Poorest dying nearly ten years younger than the rich in “deeply worrying” trend


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hp72 said:

But back to topic.. if the number of people who died on the roads was transcribed into violent crime that's a very sad story but we seem to accept lt in our stride. 

Last figures I found with a quick Google gave 613 homicides for the year to March 2017 (the actual number listed was higher because it included Hillsborough victims, which seems a bit odd) and about 1700 road deaths.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Yes, the way that people react to the changes in the world is shaped by their genetic makeup.  But that's not the same as evolution through natural selection, which occurs through generations.

It is exactly the same. What, you think animal behavioural patterns aren't relevant to an animal or indeed a person's success, thus being a strong target for natural selection?

Also.:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world

15 hours ago, scottbeard said:

It also is slightly missing the point - if a kebab shop opens and locals end up fatter because they keep going to it, I think attributing that weight gain to genetics because we all have a genetic disposition that makes it hard to resist fatty fast food is missing the more obvious point that fundamentally it's the higher preponderance of kebab shops causing the problem.  And it's certainly not evolution, as it's the same people, just behaving differently.

Why do some areas have lots of kebab shops, and others almost none?

The kebab shop can only thrive if the locals are inclined to eat crappy food. The same inclination predisposes them to being fat anyway. Without this predisposition, the kebab shop goes out of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Locke said:

It is exactly the same. What, you think animal behavioural patterns aren't relevant to an animal or indeed a person's success, thus being a strong target for natural selection?

Also.:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world

Why do some areas have lots of kebab shops, and others almost none?

The kebab shop can only thrive if the locals are inclined to eat crappy food. The same inclination predisposes them to being fat anyway. Without this predisposition, the kebab shop goes out of business.

Does anyone know anyone who still eats kebabs? Years ago I realized it must be difficult to sell skin, fat and gristle served up on dry bread, so the kebab shops must be just fronts for other nefarious businesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Locke said:

It is exactly the same. What, you think animal behavioural patterns aren't relevant to an animal or indeed a person's success, thus being a strong target for natural selection?

Also.:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world

Why do some areas have lots of kebab shops, and others almost none?

The kebab shop can only thrive if the locals are inclined to eat crappy food. The same inclination predisposes them to being fat anyway. Without this predisposition, the kebab shop goes out of business.

Unless they are money laundering operation ?

Edit: Apologies, i see the poster above made the same point in a more subtle, general way  

 

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hp72 said:

I'm wondering when the "recent" exposure to WiFi,  mobile phones, heavily chlorinated and flourided tap water, microwave ovens (see the studies on ice crystal formation on microwaved h2o) and chemicals in food and cosmetics (not to forget the aforementioned particulates from vehicles) will manifest into quantified statistics. As long as the vested interests Who made lots and lots of money out of all these things are ok and have retired / passed away then......? 

Yep there's all sorts of stuff. 

5G will massively increase exposure to high frequency radio waves.  There will be transmitters every few hundred metres with no escape from it.  It's my belief that the recent mass tree culls in Sheffield and some other places are because leaves attenuate these high frequency waves, so they had to go.

The biological effects of this type of radiation have barely been researched.  This massive increase in unnatural RF exposure, continuous from womb to grave, is being wheeled out with no real knowledge of its effects.   The only biological effect considered is heat.

There seems to be a real effect on bugs.  The decline in bug populations noted recently was blamed on climate change.  IMHO this must be nonsense.  Insect species migrate quickly into and out of their preferred climate zones.  But there IS evidence that insects are fried by 5G.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Imagine if nuclear power stations in the UK were incontrovertibly killing 2 thousand people a year and giving another 20k life-changing injuries, a high proportion of them children. People would go mental. Oh but it's the roads, people are used to the daily violence, just how it is, so who cares.

The scary thing is that many other countries are far worse than us and don't care either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Imagine if nuclear power stations in the UK were incontrovertibly killing 2 thousand people a year and giving another 20k life-changing injuries, a high proportion of them children. People would go mental. Oh but it's the roads, people are used to the daily violence, just how it is, so who cares.

This is a very good example of people struggling to relate numbers to the actual risk to themselves. What about the carnage from people falling down stairs? 1000 die a year from that (in the first link with a number that I got from Google, which was admittedly back in 2000). Suicide is a bigger cause of death than traffic accidents, IMO that's more of a concern because it reflects on the sort of society we've built.

 

edit: found some more recent figures (2011, so admittedly still not that up to date), 693 from falling down stairs. Accidental poisoning was a greater cause of death then than traffic accidents too. All dwarf into insignificance compared medical causes.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, kzb said:

There seems to be a real effect on bugs.  The decline in bug populations noted recently was blamed on climate change.  IMHO this must be nonsense.  Insect species migrate quickly into and out of their preferred climate zones.  But there IS evidence that insects are fried by 5G.

Rise in pesticides is more likely the cause IMO. Monsanto owns the agricultural boards and the EU is literally destroying nature in the name of profit. 75% decline in bug population since its formation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Imagine if nuclear power stations in the UK were incontrovertibly killing 2 thousand people a year and giving another 20k life-changing injuries, a high proportion of them children. People would go mental. Oh but it's the roads, people are used to the daily violence, just how it is, so who cares.

Roads are an awful, crappy way to conduct transport. That is why it takes massive government violence to force people to pay for and accept them.

MUH ROADS is really a test on how much of an npc you are.

NPC: We need the government to pay for roads

Basic level: should the government steal to pay for roads?

Middle level: Who should pay for roads?

Advanced level: Should roads even exist?

Player level: people should decide for themselves what transportation they want to use and pay for.

Edited by Locke
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

The alternative being...?

The original alternative was "not much travelling." There's a lot to be said for that but it would require massive upheavals, not sure how that could be achieved. A bit later trains took most of it, but again a smaller population that didn't travel as much, there's no way the rail network could handle the bulk of transport nowdays even with ridiculous levels of spending. Flying isn't something we should encourage more for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

The alternative being...?

Exactly, we have had roads for thousands of years and they have proved to be quite an effective way of moving around.  Railways are a relatively recent invention and require a great deal of maintenance to remain safe.  Ignore the work-hardening of tracks and the general maintenance rail networks require at your peril.  At least with roads we can see them degrading as 'austerity' continues to undermine the UK's transport infrastructure - who knows whats happening to our rail network.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kzb said:

Yep there's all sorts of stuff. 

5G will massively increase exposure to high frequency radio waves.  There will be transmitters every few hundred metres with no escape from it.  It's my belief that the recent mass tree culls in Sheffield and some other places are because leaves attenuate these high frequency waves, so they had to go.

The biological effects of this type of radiation have barely been researched.  This massive increase in unnatural RF exposure, continuous from womb to grave, is being wheeled out with no real knowledge of its effects.   The only biological effect considered is heat.

There seems to be a real effect on bugs.  The decline in bug populations noted recently was blamed on climate change.  IMHO this must be nonsense.  Insect species migrate quickly into and out of their preferred climate zones.  But there IS evidence that insects are fried by 5G.

Everything new is always perceived as being the work of the devil.

5G isn't fundamentally any different to 4G, 3G or 2G.  Or Radio 4 for that matter.

People were terrified of electricity once too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tes Tickle said:

Everything new is always perceived as being the work of the devil.

5G isn't fundamentally any different to 4G, 3G or 2G.  Or Radio 4 for that matter.

People were terrified of electricity once too.

Every "G" in the series represents a ramping up of exposure.

I'm not saying necessarily that it is harmful.  Just that there are so many unknowns in health and disease, and things may not be as we are told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, onlooker said:

Does anyone know anyone who still eats kebabs? Years ago I realized it must be difficult to sell skin, fat and gristle served up on dry bread, so the kebab shops must be just fronts for other nefarious businesses.

What could be worse than destroying the health of the population with junk food

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, dougless said:

Exactly, we have had roads for thousands of years and they have proved to be quite an effective way of moving around.  Railways are a relatively recent invention and require a great deal of maintenance to remain safe.  Ignore the work-hardening of tracks and the general maintenance rail networks require at your peril.  At least with roads we can see them degrading as 'austerity' continues to undermine the UK's transport infrastructure - who knows whats happening to our rail network.

The skimping on rail maintenance that went on under Railtrack, eventually resulting in the Hatfield derailment, is probably still recent enough to fear a repeat of it if the same skimping comes back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dougless said:

Exactly, we have had roads for thousands of years and they have proved to be quite an effective way of moving around.  Railways are a relatively recent invention and require a great deal of maintenance to remain safe.  Ignore the work-hardening of tracks and the general maintenance rail networks require at your peril.  At least with roads we can see them degrading as 'austerity' continues to undermine the UK's transport infrastructure - who knows whats happening to our rail network.

And rail maintenance has increased exponentially due to the obsession with 90 - 100 mph running. The Brighton line is often 6 or even only 5 days of rail travel end to end punctuated by buses.

In the diesel era I sometimes used the 08.36 Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn. The 97 mile trip took until, I think, 10.25, doubt it ever touched 80. 

Today's electrics run from Kings X which is further. Speed of the Potters Bar derailment was said to be 100 mph.

Clearly people do want to save a few minutes, personally in this example I can't see the point, cutting an hour off London to Scotland, then ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bluestone59 said:

And rail maintenance has increased exponentially due to the obsession with 90 - 100 mph running. The Brighton line is often 6 or even only 5 days of rail travel end to end punctuated by buses.

In the diesel era I sometimes used the 08.36 Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn. The 97 mile trip took until, I think, 10.25, doubt it ever touched 80. 

Today's electrics run from Kings X which is further. Speed of the Potters Bar derailment was said to be 100 mph.

Clearly people do want to save a few minutes, personally in this example I can't see the point, cutting an hour off London to Scotland, then ok.

I tend to agree with you. Speed pushes up the wear and tear on track and rolling stock enormously. It also increases risk.

It does allow a more rapid put through of travellers, provided the signalling modern, and it supposedly makes rail more competitive with cars over a given total journey time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

The alternative being...?

Since I am not obsessed with micromanaging other people's lives, I am comfortable saying I don't know. It may be that, given choice, people would choose the current set up, though I doubt it.

I think that without the government stealing from us and propping up the roads, you would see a move to organic social reorganisation, where cities reclaim the absurdly wasteful paved areas to become more dense and walkable. See ancient cities like Florence or Hvar. This would eliminate much of the transport requirements presented today as why roads are so critical in the first place.

I think mass transit between urban areas (such that it would be; people would naturally choose to live much more locally) would be conducted by rail. goods delivery to shops could be conducted by small trucks on smaller dedicated roads.

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

The original alternative was "not much travelling." There's a lot to be said for that but it would require massive upheavals, not sure how that could be achieved. A bit later trains took most of it, but again a smaller population that didn't travel as much, there's no way the rail network could handle the bulk of transport nowdays even with ridiculous levels of spending. Flying isn't something we should encourage more for.

Mostly this. The upheavals are not optional. We either choose to kick the government out of our lives soon and grow up, or the whole thing crashes down later, because it is utterly unsustainable.

1 hour ago, dougless said:

Exactly, we have had roads for thousands of years and they have proved to be quite an effective way of moving around. 

Not in their current form. Check out ancient cities. Roads are actually mind-blowingly wasteful and absurdly dangerous.

Quote

Railways are a relatively recent invention and require a great deal of maintenance to remain safe.

But they are extraordinarily efficient, quiet, safe and fast.

Quote

At least with roads we can see them degrading as 'austerity' continues to undermine the UK's transport infrastructure - who knows whats happening to our rail network.

So roads are good, because they degrade easily and are expensive to maintain? 

And lol, it's the government looking after the rails, so....

Edited by Locke
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Locke said:

It is exactly the same. What, you think animal behavioural patterns aren't relevant to an animal or indeed a person's success, thus being a strong target for natural selection?

Also.:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world

Why do some areas have lots of kebab shops, and others almost none?

The kebab shop can only thrive if the locals are inclined to eat crappy food. The same inclination predisposes them to being fat anyway. Without this predisposition, the kebab shop goes out of business

Also people don't even walk to the kebab shop any more.

They just eat deliveroo it.

Both rich and poor are but a click away from a vast number of calaories

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/11/2018 at 13:44, winkie said:

Some of the poor have less to live for, very many of the poor are better off, happier and more contented than the wealthy who have far more to lose.....death is the one sure guarantee...being poor but healthy has to be better than rich poor of health.?

 

"i smoke cause im hoping for an early death,and i need to cling to something".The Smiths

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/11/2018 at 09:45, iamnumerate said:

If I had smoked since 16, I would be a lot poorer and less healthy.  However it would not be my poverty that would have caused my ill health.  I don't think all of the difference is due to this, however it must have something to do with it.

 

I would love to see a model for how much smoking changes 2 identical people's health and wealth so we can discount the smoking effect.

Here are some photos of twins - one smoker, one not...

https://health.good.is/articles/twin-smokes

and the study it relates to https://www.metroatlantaotolaryngology.org/journal/feb14/Smoking and aging.pdf

 

Edited by PeanutButter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.