HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » We’re living longer, but ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:35 PM

We’re living longer, but sicker: Study finds life expectancy rising but so is disability

We’re living longer, but sicker: Study finds life expectancy rising but so is disability
Article by: MARIA CHENG , Associated Press
Updated: December 13, 2012 - 11:45 AM

LONDON - Nearly everywhere around the world, people are living longer and fewer children are dying. But increasingly, people are grappling with the diseases and disabilities of modern life, according to the most expansive global look so far at life expectancy and the biggest health threats.

The last comprehensive study was in 1990 and the top health problem then was the death of children under 5 — more than 10 million each year. Since then, campaigns to vaccinate kids against diseases like polio and measles have reduced the number of children dying to about 7 million.

Malnutrition was once the main health threat for children. Now, everywhere except Africa, they are much more likely to overeat than to starve.

With more children surviving, chronic illnesses and disabilities that strike later in life are taking a bigger toll, the research said. High blood pressure has become the leading health risk worldwide, followed by smoking and alcohol.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/13/senate-pressure-cia-interrogation-torture

6 replies, 920 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply We’re living longer, but sicker: Study finds life expectancy rising but so is disability (Original post)
Judi Lynn Dec 2012 OP
PopeOxycontinI Dec 2012 #1
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #2
Sam1 Dec 2012 #3
Igel Dec 2012 #4
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #6
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #5

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:09 PM

1. I'm not surprised

I'm not knocking longer lives...but I don't I wanna live to be 90 if that last decade consists largely
of shitting a diaper and being barely mobile. 75-80 reasonably healthy years is good, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PopeOxycontinI (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:11 AM

2. The Ancient Greek myth of Tithonius comes to mind.

He falls in love with the goddess Eos, and she begs Zeus to give Tithonius immortality. He gets it, but she forgot to ask for eternal youth, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PopeOxycontinI (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:25 AM

3. I don't think that you have to worry about that!

The stuff that I have read indicates that life expectancy when measured at say age 65 hasn't changed that much in the last 40 or 50 years. The dramatic increases in life expectancy have come form the fact that more individuals make it out of childhood not that 65year olds are living longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sam1 (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:10 PM

4. Of course not.

The term you want is "expectation of life."

The primary reason to worry about expectation of life in current political discourse is because of wrangles over Social Security.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html seems reasonable. I found one at Berkeley a few weeks ago, but it's not popping up in my list of Google hits this time.

In 1940, expectation of life at age 60 for white males was a little over 15 years. In 2004, it was 20.9. By 2010 it was probably a solid 6 years greater. If we just deduct 5 years from those numbers for aged 65 (probably close enough for argument's sake), then we'd be looking at a difference of 10 years (1940) versus 16 years (2004). It may not be decades, but that's a hefty addition to the post-retirement years. And that's white males. It's around 7 additional years for white females.

For the last 50 years, that would be around 5 years (white males) and 4 years (white females). Odd asymmetry there for males and females, not sure I really understand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:33 AM

6. Perhaps it's because more men than women having given up smoking in the last 40 years

The smoking rates, 40 years ago, could have been putting the male expectancy a year lower than it 'ought' to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:17 AM

5. A correct link:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread