May 17, 2006

Iraq or Baltimore which is safer?

Little bit of information that you have to dig to find.

http://www.nysun.com/article/32787

3 comments:

- Rob said...

OK, so you post this NOW just after our family vacation to Baltimore (5th on the list) and Washington DC (4th on the list)! :)

On the serious side, at least I feel like I have a lot of places that I can safely go in Wash DC and Baltimore where I will not become one of these statistics. I suspect that in Iraq I would be seriously restricted in what I could see and do to feel safe about not being part of this list.

Joe Williams said...

Yes, if you discount the deaths from the war itself, there have only been 35,000 or so in three years. Iraq has 26 million people, so that's an average of about, um, 45 violent deaths per 100,000.

The US national rate is about 5.5 per 100,000, though as those stats point out, many cities are far worse.

For US soldiers, it's not so good. We've got about 150,000 troops, and we've had some 2300 killed in the three years since the war ended (current rates are higher than the first year), which is some 511 violent deaths per 100,000 per year. Ouch. Slightly more dangerous than Baltimore. On the other hand, still a 99.5% annual survival rate.

timmer said...

depends on where you go in iraq. to compare apples to apples. violent deaths per 100,000 people per year. united states: 6, iraq: 25. baltimore:38, baghdad: ~75.