Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> I think soldier could be reasonably classed as an 'at risk' career 
> compared to being a civilian.

It depends on the civilian job, really. Remember that soldiers (at least 
US 
soldiers in the modern era) tend to have lots of armor and weapons to sho
ot 
back with. Certainly if you're not in a war zone, you're less likely to g
et 
killed as a soldier than as (say) a fireman.

http://crookedtimber.org/2008/12/23/the-future-is-a-shoe-being-thrown-at-
a-human-face-forever/

"""
President of the USA: Five job related deaths since 1789 (assassinations 
of 
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, plus death of William Henry Harriso
n 
from job-related stress illness). That’s 0.022831 job related fat
alities per 
year, in a job that can have only one person doing it at a time. Converti
ng 
this to more normal units of occupational fatality for comparison with ot
her 
jobs, that’s 2283 deaths per 100,000 President/years. This compar
es to 117 
deaths per 100k worker/years for timber-cutters, the most dangerous stand
ard 
occupational category.
Soldier, US Army, Iraq war: Up to March 2006, 392 fatalities per 100k 


spend all their time in battle zones, so based on reasonable estimates of
 
fatalities outside combat zones, something around 80 would be more 
reasonable, more or less comparable to fishermen (anecdotally, the in-Ira
q 
death rate would be comparable to Pacific Northwest crab fishermen, the 
single most dangerous occupation anyone could find).
"""

He goes on to list job-related-fatality rates for popes, kings, etc. Pret
ty 
amusing.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message