American Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Moms

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
If you needed a reason to keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, here it is: Women with higher education levels now are dying younger. It might be a misquote. But it looks more like a conspiracy to me.


Ameri can Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Moms

According to recent studies, the life span for women has decreased over the last two decades, with women today expected to have a much shorter life span than their mothers…

…scientists are baffled about what is causing the decline, although some attribute the higher mortality rates to …higher education levels.


On the other hand, maybe air pollution is the culprit - and women are just more susceptible to all those nasty fine particulates than men are. And given that men make the environmental laws - well, looks like we're back to conspiracy.




posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I have a lot to say about this, need to gather my thoughts and some studies I've read that could be related. Posted so I will remember to do so



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Seems like half the obits in the newspapers are for both men and women under age 65. Probably something changed in our diets back in the 1950's?


+11 more 
posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The womens movement backfired in some ways.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it's ridiculous to have women focusing on building education and career during their most fertile years. Lots of stress on women to become what they already are. Equal.


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Hi OP and everyone!
Good thread, and yes I've noticed this too!
I'm wondering if us baby-boomers have a shorter shelf life now? Didn't atomic testing start it the late 40's and early 50's? (Sorry, don't quite remember.) I'm sure that I read a thread here that said the radiation would start affecting people born after, which would be.... the baby boomers.

Couple that with all the chemicals/additives that have entered our diet...not as many people growing their own food, most relying on pre-packaged and fast food. It seems to me that we aren't going to be making it to old age, like many of our parents are (or did).

S&F of course....pretty damn depressing, huh?
jacygirl



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
We can get this issue sorted out right nao.


+6 more 
posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


The culprits:
Massive Air Pollution, GMO Foods, BPA Leaching Plastics, 28+ Vaccines, American Diet of Fast Foods/Massive Portions/Tons of Sugar, Prescription Craze, I can go on and on and on....

My Grandmother, 82, said in her life, it was unheard of for people to have cancer. Most died in old age or heart attacks.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Well, it is known that pregnancy and breast feeding give a woman a bit more protection against certain cancers.

Maybe women with higher education levels are less likely to have children or, if they do, they have them later so it doesn't have the same benefit?

Curious...



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Is that causation or correlation?

Education level and socioeconomic status are inversely correlated with birth rate.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


and yet the pharma/GMO shills loudly proclaim that health & longevity are at an all time high


Too loudly, I suspect.

Stress, and the dog eat dog * lifestyle certainly are factors, but returning to the Stone Age isn't the answer.

*or b@tch, as the case may be.

OT:1st post from my iPhone 4





posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


LOL! I have no idea, I rely on smart ATSers to break it down for me
But I tip my hat to your excellent point, I was just saying...



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Women are out working now,so much for feminism. The greedy bastaaafds need a bigger workforce. First it was women now its immigrants.


+4 more 
posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Too much calcium increases their risk of coronary events. Changes in chemistry of antiperspirants causes reduced output of the drains of the lymphatic system leading to breast cancer. Changes in diet created by having more money causes a lot of health problems including cancer increases. Problems with Candida Albacans causing health problems. Disregard of the proven ancestral food preparation methods causing metabolic issues. The absence of worms on the lettuce and other veggies causing a lowering of Chitosan which reduces healing ability of the intestines. The electromagnetic field created by cell phones and other wireless technology and transformers is messing with the brain. Not eating the rendered fat is causing a reduction of the elastin binding protein in the body leading to weaker lungs, heart, veins and arteries, and muscles. Deficiencies caused by food grown on depleted soils. Changes in the structure of the meats we eat by modern farming practices is causing problems. Milk is full of hormones that shouldn't be there in the amounts that they are.

I could go on and on. It is not a few changes, it is a lot of changes that is causing the problem.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

kosmicjack
Well, it is known that pregnancy and breast feeding give a woman a bit more protection against certain cancers.

Maybe women with higher education levels are less likely to have children or, if they do, they have them later so it doesn't have the same benefit?

Curious...


There may be some truth to this, if women are anything like Killer Whales.

Last year I took a conservation course. My professor was a marine biologist. One of the things he said is the female Killer Whales in the Puget Sound tend to live longer than the males.

He said that with bio-accumulation, the females and the males are both toxic. The females, after having their first calf will lose a large amount of their toxin accumulation through pregnancy/nursing their first calf. This calf usually doesn't survive, but subsequent calves usually live.

However the males can't lose their toxins and will often die younger than the females because of overload.

I will try to find a study supporting what he told the class.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Not, apparently, everywhere:

A more recent report confirmed these findings, revealing that female life expectancy either stagnated or declined in 45 percent of U.S. counties between 1985 and 2010.

www.alternet.org...
 


Here is that "more recent report" showing that overall life expectancies have increased for both males and female.


Female life expectancy in the United States increased from 78.0 years in 1985 to 80.9 years in 2010, while male life expectancy increased from 71.0 years in 1985 to 76.3 years in 2010.
Men are catching up to women in life expectancy.


The reduction in the number of counties where female life expectancy at birth is declining in the most recent period is welcome news.
There are fewer counties where life expectancies for women are declining.
www.pophealthmetrics.com...

edit on 10/18/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Uh huh. NOTE: Men are "catching up" to women NOT because they're living longer, but because women are dying younger. So. Are you saying there is NO conspiracy? Or - there is one, but it's bigger than we know?


At the same time, the life expectancy for men did not change.



...The gap between female and male life expectancy in the United States was 7.0 years in 1985, narrowing to 4.6 years in 2010.

...1,405 out of 3,143 counties (45%) have seen no significant change or a significant decline in female life expectancy from 1985 to 2010. In all time periods, the lowest county-level life expectancies are seen in the South, the Mississippi basin, West Virginia, Kentucky, and selected counties with large Native American populations. ...

United States life expectancy at birth ranks 40th for males and 39th for females across 187 countries in the world in 2010 [1]. Given that the US spends more than any other country on health care [2-5] the poor relative performance of the US compared to other high-income countries has attracted increasing attention [6,7]. An important dimension to poor national performance is the large disparities in life expectancy and other metrics of mortality across populations within the US [8-12]. Racial and ethnic disparities as well as socio-economic disparities are large [13-15].




edit on 18/10/13 by soficrow because: format
edit on 18/10/13 by soficrow because: to add



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


NOTE: Men are "catching up" to women NOT because they're living longer, but because women are dying younger.

That isn't what the study cited in the article says.


Female life expectancy in the United States increased from 78.0 years in 1985 to 80.9 years in 2010, while male life expectancy increased from 71.0 years in 1985 to 76.3 years in 2010.

www.pophealthmetrics.com...

Females increased by 2.9 years
Males increased by 5.3 years


edit on 10/18/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


I would bet money as to why perhaps women are dying at higher rates than in the past:

-Obesity(in the past heart disease was thought of as a male disease, now women are dying in record numbers from heart disease...also coincides with our fat nation. Women have less testosterone in body and extra fat is even more dangerous to them as it's harder to lose.)
-Stress(which could lead to heart disease. Men don't have as many employment options as in the past. It is not uncommon to find women working full-time jobs and coming home to clean/cook. The male/female relationship in heterosexual couples isn't always supportive of female breadwinners. Thank goodness I'm a lesbo)


For any saying that it has to do with education and working, I say bs. There are many countries where women are highly educated and routinely have jobs and have high life expectancy.

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org...



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Tusks
Seems like half the obits in the newspapers are for both men and women under age 65. Probably something changed in our diets back in the 1950's?

I have noticed that too, of course they like to chemo them to death too.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


A lot more babies survive now than they did a while ago. The lack of deaths at a young age raise the life expectancy figures, we really aren't living much longer. If you go to an old cemetary and look at the headstones in your area, and filter out people who fought in wars, people who died in the 1918 epidemic, people who died in mine or work related accidents, so on so forth. You will find a lot of people who lived into their eighties and nineties.

Our biggest increases in longlivity increases results from better working conditions and less infant deaths.

Remember that just because life expectancy is 80 doesn't mean that half the people live that long. Only twelve percent of people probably live to eighty.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join