Different groups publish that such-and-such a percentage of the
population dies from  - e.g. - heart decease, lung cancer, violence
(USA, mainly), other cancers, HIV, etc.  I am interested in learning
if it can be shown that there must be some exageration in these
percentages, since in sum they equal more than 100%.
Obviously the answer would have to give such statistics for one
country  - or the whole world population (hunger then included).  I
don't really care which country, though would prefer USA or a major
European country, though the whole world would be really good.
For two countries, I'll give a tip.
I hope someone will be sympathetic to my doubts and help justify them.
Thanks in advance.
Myoarin

---

Clarification of Question by myoarin-ga on 27 Mar 2005 04:01 PST

Quite true, Probono.
Maybe it would be helpful if commenters provided examples of such
statistics, and just let them be added later.
For example (fictitious): The American Stroke Association estimates
that 20% of Americans die each year as the result of a stroke. 
www.....

Got the idea?  The first GAR who finds a 100+% total for a country can
answer the question, which should not, however discourage further
entries.
Hopefully, care will be taken to avoid duplications about one source of death.
When this provides a larger number, of course, it should be reported,
preferably with an indication that it is a higher report than the
previous one.
Thank you all for your help.
Myoarin

---

Clarification of Question by myoarin-ga on 01 Apr 2005 06:17 PST

This is not as interesting as I thought it would be  - at least as the
way I stated the question.
I would be interested in examples of health statistics that seem to
defy documentation, such as those I will post as comments:

The estimate that 300,000 people in the EU - in Germany 70,000 - die
each year as a result of fine diesel soot particles in the air.  These
figures have been thrown out recently in connection with a new EU
limit on them, although prior to the this new limit, there was no
general discussion of numbers, and one can imagine that 40 years ago 
- if the present estimates are correct -  everyone dying from lung
cancer must have died from this cause rather than from smoking or
other junk in the air.

Or, that half the families in Germany have a member that has suffered
from depression, with no definition of "family".  Sure, my
mother-in-law suffered from widow's depression for two year; is she a
member of my family?  And also a member of my in-law's family?

And so on.  Your favorite health statistic?

I don't know the answer, but I'm reminded of an article I cut out and
showed to my parents when I was a kid.  It added up all the time one
spends during the day -- 8 hours sleeping, an hour travelling, an hour
eating meals, etc -- and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there
was absolutely no time left for doing homework.

Some folks do die from more than one cause.

But does it matter?

They are still dead!

Please note the clarification changing my question:

Five years ago, the European Union  (EU) decided to tighten the
standards for air pollution resulting from diesel soot that was
presumed to come from unfiltered diesel exhausts, but someone has said
the 980% of it is swirled up from the surface of the streets,
including tire particles.  Suddenly statistics are being reported, now
from the EU commissioner for Industry, that 300,000 persons ? 70,000
in Germany ? die each year as a result of this fine soot.  It was
there all along, but now with the new standard it is suddenly a
significant factor, and one must wonder  - if the figures are correct
-  how anyone thirty years ago could have die of a lung decease that
was no caused by this source.

?Depression in every second family? a headline announced.  53% of 1702
representatively questioned Germans said that they or a member of
their family had once suffered from depression.  Every fifth person
said that he/she had suffered from depression.  Probably only once
person per family was questioned, but the definition of family was
left open  - grandparents, adult siblings?  How many incidents of
widow(er)?s depression counted to justify the statement by the
professor for psychology that ?we are in the face of an epidemic?

An interesting statement (my translation):  ?In stark contrast to the
high number of sufferers, that go into the millions, is the care. 
Only 22 % of those affected responded in the survey that during their
depression there had been more or less no problems with their
treatment by doctors or psychologists.?

Great journalism:  were they all in treatment and 78% were unhappy
with their care?  Or were only 22% in care and 100% ?more or less?
satisfied with it?