13 Aug 07
Originally posted by NordlysHey, Water Safety is a big huge deal here!
http://phoenix.gov/FIRE/watersafe.html#BATH
In a place this hot, almost everyone has a pool, and in past years, we had a lot of child drownings. We're doing much better with public awareness of the problem now.
Watch your kids around water!
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by SuzianneAccording to Steven Leavitt in his book "Freakonomics":
Hey, Water Safety is a big huge deal here!
In a place this hot, almost everyone has a pool, and in past years, we had a lot of child drownings. We're doing much better with public awareness of the problem now.
Watch your kids around water!
"In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimate 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn't even close: Molly is far more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani's house than in gunplay at Amy's."
(Leavitt, Steven D., "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Side Of Everything" (revised and expanded edition), 2006, p.135-136)
15 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by PBE6While I liked that booked, his manipulation of stats are well, manipulative.
According to Steven Leavitt in his book "Freakonomics":
"In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a xplores The Hidden Side Of Everything" (revised and expanded edition), 2006, p.135-136)
If 550 kids die in a pool, and 175 die from a gunshot, then the likelihood of dying in a pool is only 3 times greater than dying from a gunshot if you compare the stats to the total # of kids in america.
Not the 1 in 11,000, vs 1 in 1million he quotes.
15 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by z00tA mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/6944026.stm
What will we have next? People drowning in a bath?
-Erdos
so maybe she just solved formats last theorem like fermat did, and was just so shocked?
i probably drink about 3 cups of coffee a day, and up to about 6 during term time. but it messes up your system, and i try to spread it out. it sounds like she had them all in the same morning. 😕
15 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessNo. Imagine children only die in one of two ways: either drowning in a pool or being shot by a gun. Then if a given child has died in the past year, the child is 550/(550+175) = 75% likely to have died in a pool and 175/(550+175) = 25% to have died from a gunshot, or 3:1 as you say.
While I liked that booked, his manipulation of stats are well, manipulative.
If 550 kids die in a pool, and 175 die from a gunshot, then the likelihood of dying in a pool is only 3 times greater than dying from a gunshot if you compare the stats to the total # of kids in america.
Not the 1 in 11,000, vs 1 in 1million he quotes.
However, his point is that pools are more deadly to children per unit than guns are, and his analysis answers the question "how likely is it that a child will die by interacting with this object?" If there were 200 million pools in the United States (the same number of pools as guns), then you would expect the number of deaths from drowning to be (1/11,000)*(200,000,000) = 18,182, about 100 times greater than the number of deaths from gunshots.
The reason he investigated this question is that one of his young sons died in a pool, something Leavitt heretofore had thought was relatively safe. He attributes the lack of safety at pools to the fact that they are so familiar as recreational facilities and therefore seemingly so benign. Guns on the other hand kill suddenly and violently, and are outside the everyday experience of children and many adults, and are therefore seen as more dangerous and correspondingly treated with greater care. By publishing his results, he's trying to change the way people look at pools and hopefully reduce the number of deaths (he explicitly states he does not care about changing policy with his other data on sumo wrestlers, real estate agents, etc...)
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
16 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's a big huge deal in Arizona? Pah. It's a big huge deal here, where the water isn't locked up behind people's garden fences and children only drown when their parents can't be arsed to keep an eye on their swimming pool, but is just about everywhere. In Arizona, Water Safety means "keep the lid on your pool unless a grown-up is watching it". In the Netherlands, water safety means that children really have to be taught about water and just about everybody learns to swim. In a country that is essentially one big complicated delta, with rivers, lakes and canals all over the place, you learn to swim or you drown. That's water safety.
Hey, Water Safety is a big huge deal here!
In a place this hot, almost everyone has a pool, and in past years, we had a lot of child drownings. We're doing much better with public awareness of the problem now.
Watch your kids around water!
Richard
16 Aug 07
Originally posted by PBE6Oh, I completely agree with the derivation. I'm just saying his assumptions are off.
No. Imagine children only die in one of two ways: either drowning in a pool or being shot by a gun. Then if a given child has died in the past year, the child is 550/(550+175) = 75% likely to have died in a pool and 175/(550+175) = 25% to have died from a gunshot, or 3:1 as you say.
However, his point is that pools are more deadly to children per un ...[text shortened]... care about changing policy with his other data on sumo wrestlers, real estate agents, etc...)
Kids interact with a pool many many times, thus increasing the likelihood of dying. Kids rarely ever interact with a gun and when they do, it's usually fatal.
So the relative "safety" of one or the other is skewed by the amount of times a kid interacts with that object.
Your likehood of dying from one interaction with a gun is WAY higher than 1 interaction with a pool. Anytime you do any activity alot of times your likelihood of dying from it naturally goes up.
Still, his point that pools pose a danger is valid.