Interesting facts that need confirmation

[90-percent]

I was watching a show called "Wierd or What" on Discovery (I looked for the show on the Discovery website and couldn't even find it, but that's another issue) They had a segment about a woman that was shot in the chest and she was extremely lucky she had breast implants. It made the bullet disperse before hitting her heart. But, that's not the point. At the end of the segment they had a factoid:

From 1965 to 2004 there have been almost 1.5 million deaths from firearms in the United States

That is freekin' REMARKABLE, if true!



Second one is an email from a righty buddy that I find compelling;

What is the story here? (Be sure to view all the way to the end!) What happened to the radiation that's supposed to last thousands of years??

HIROSHIMA, 1945:

----Lots of devastation pics------

We all know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed in August 1945 after the explosion of atomic bombs. However, most of us know very little about the progress made by the people of that land during the past 64 years.

HIROSHIMA, 64 YEARS LATER:

---lots of magnificent buildings pics----

DETROIT, 64 YEARS AFTER HIROSHIMA:

----lots of sad urban blight and rotting buildings pics----

So in the end, one must wonder: What caused more destruction? The atomic bomb or government policy? Hmmmm?




I've always wondered why the two cities that suffered from nuclear bombing in WW2 in Japan seems to have returned to normalcy post WW2. I thought the radiation is supposed to last hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years? How did they become inhabitable again so soon? The Detroit vs. Hiroshima comparison is provocative, you must admit.


Lastly, there was some History channel show about WW2. It said that in the first eight months of WW2, there was about 8,000 American casualties from the war. IN THE SAME PERIOD, there was 64,000 CIVILIAN CASUALTIES of workers employed in defense manufacturing plants. That seems remarkable? Is it true?

I'd be interested in what you all have to say about these interesting pieces of information. All of the above I find remarkable, hence this post for my DU buddies.

-90% Jimmy

[WCGreen]

1. For one thing, the Japanese don't build subsidized highways

to the suburbs...

They have very limited land while we have an abundance of land to just keep moving on...

[spinbaby]

2. I've been to HIroshima

It's a bustling, vibrant city. I saw more children in Hiroshima than anywhere else in Japan.

[geckosfeet]

3. That works out to 39,461 deaths by firearm per year over that time period.

If you go the Center for disease control and prevention wbesite they have a decent interactive map on death rates. You can apply various filters to get an idea what death rates due to various causes are.

I quickly ran a filter on firearm deaths and got a national rate of .08 per 100,000 from 2000 through 2006. That works out to 24,900 for a population of 300,000,000. Somewhat lower than the number from your data.

[pinboy3niner]

13. Another study reports a MUCH higher rate

From a study of one year's data reported in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 1998:


"The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US...."

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/27/2/214

[geckosfeet]

17. Looks like that study was done around 1997. The statistics I cited were from 2000 through 2006.

But it DOES NOT include deaths from what they say are statistically invalid samples (not enough data). As a result the rate per 100,000 was calculated from only about half the states in the country.

I suspect the real rate is a moving target and somewhere in between - but my gut says it is closer to the 1997 rate.

[pinboy3niner]

18. I agree with you

You also get into differences in definitions of terms, and I wasn't interested in going very far into the weeds.

[izquierdista]

4. Or corporate policy?

As I understand it, Detroit was a pretty vibrant place when there were automobile factories there. But at some point, corporations thought it was a better deal to outsource.

[Bigmack]

5. Without reaping a shitstorm from US car boosters...

When Detroit had no competition, the area was vibrant. Shitty exec decisions... Edsel... Chevette... and no innovation led to the rise of Toyota and Honda. World competition - and health care subsidies for workers in the foreign auto plants - led to Detroit's decline.

According to the rules the capitalists love to cite, industries rise and fall, and a hands-off government policy leaves industries to fail or succeed on their own.

[Warpy]

8. Government policy encouraged outsourcing

because Republican government policy was geared toward breaking unions and driving wages down.

The OP might want to point out that Republican policies are what have destroyed industry in this country, even if southern conservative presidents like Carter and Clinton rubberstamped some of those policies.

They originated with Republicans and the blame belongs entirely to them.

As for the radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's still there and will result in increased cancer rates in those cities long after anyone remembers that they were once destroyed in a flash of unimaginable heat and light.

[divvy]

6. Guns Kill. That is what they are for.

[hootinholler]

7. If they need confirmation they are NOT facts.

As to the other assertions, I have to assert that it was republican policies that harmed Detroit.

-Hoot

[mix]

9. Detroit's ruin is due to "government policy"?

More like free market capitalism and corporation controlled government, i.e. outsourcing and anti-union legislation.

[starroute]

10. There were 416,800 US military deaths in World War II

That's according to Wikipedia -- other sources say anything from 300,000 to 500,000.

If only 8000 of those deaths occurred between December 1941 and August 1942, it's because the US was still drafting people, getting its war industries ramped up, and moving troops overseas. The actual fighting part took a bit longer and at first involved mainly air and naval warfare. Major ground battles took longer yet.

http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/United-States.html

The first U.S. troops arrived in the British Isles in January 1942, but nearly a year passed before they went into action against the Axis. Meanwhile, air power provided virtually the only means for the Allies to strike at Germany. The Royal Air Force began its air offensive against Germany in May 1942, and on 4 July the first American crews participated in air raids against the Continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea

The Battle of the Coral Sea, fought during May 4–8, 1942, was a major naval battle in the Pacific Theater of World War II between the Imperial Japanese Navy and Allied naval and air forces from the United States (U.S.) and Australia. The battle was the first fleet action in which aircraft carriers engaged each other. It was also the first naval battle in history in which neither side's ships sighted or fired directly upon the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

The Battle of Midway is widely regarded as the most important naval battle of the Pacific Campaign of World War II. Between 4 and 7 June 1942, approximately one month after the Battle of the Coral Sea and six months after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States Navy decisively defeated an Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) attack against Midway Atoll, inflicting irreparable damage on the Japanese.

[90-percent]

11. thank you for your response

I am really wondering about the alleged 64,000 US defense factory workers in that time period. 64,000 people getting killed on the job is a staggering loss of humanity and those lost souls certainly deserve some historic recognition for their war time sacrifice, too!

Thanks for all the responses to my list of potential facts.

-90% Jimmy

[starroute]

12. That 64,000 figure does seem unlikely

I just googled around a little and found some stuff saying that work involving heavy machinery could be dangerous and that many factory jobs were retooled somewhat to make them safer for the women and unskilled workers who took them over during the war.

But a rate of 64,000 deaths in six months seems entirely unbelievable. Is it possible those figures were for injuries and not deaths?

[90-percent]

14. Yes

"But a rate of 64,000 deaths in six months seems entirely unbelievable. Is it possible those figures were for injuries and not deaths?"

They could have been referring to "casualties", instead of deaths? I agree it is unbelievable.

thanks again.

jim

[90-percent]

15. more info

http://community.history.com/topic/9605/t/Which-had-the-highest-casualty-rate-Marines-Army-Navy.html
Actually, factory work was more dangerous. There were over 7 million people injured or killed in America in industrial accidents during WW 2. The death rate for 1942 and 43 exceeded battlefield casualties for all the services combined! 37,600 people died in industrial accidents during that period; 7,500 more than in combat. Fatalities in factories averaged 17,000 per year in America during the war. Another 250,000 or so were permanently disabled and 4.5 million suffered temporary disabilities due to industrial accidents.


http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/mmh/machinery/


https://php.radford.edu/~wkovarik/drupal/?q=node/25

1944 -- War Production Board reports that industrial accidents killed 37,600 workers and injured 210,000 permanently and 4.5 million temporarily between Dec. 7, 1941 and Jan. 1, 1944. Comparable figures for soldiers were 30,100 killed and 75,000 wounded. (Corn, 1992).




It does seem like a forgotten piece of WW2 history that it appears to have been more dangerous working in stateside factory production than serving in the war! But, some of the above is from individual people's posts, not from certified historians.

and that's it for me. don't want to belabor this thread.

jim

[HughMoran]

16. Oh my god

I can't believe this thread. :puke: