Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Help with California Deaths

I figure that there were an extra(?) 4,100 deaths. I do not have great faith in my math and would greatly appreciate it if someone on this Forum would find an accurate number.

Anti-smoker groups insist that smoking bans reduce deaths due to less exposure to SHS.

Did the California state-wide ban on smoking actually reduce deaths compared to the nationwide trends?

California has a population of about 35,000,000.

Between 1995 to 2001;for the US, Heart Disease deaths went down 12%, Stroke deaths went down 4.5%,and Cancer deaths went down 5%.

For California from 1995 to 2001(smoking ban effective Jan 1998); Heart Disease deaths down 9%(25% Less),Stroke deaths went UP 1.7%(ABOUT 350% INCREASE), and Cancer deaths went down 4%(20% less).

NOTE: Smoking rates nationwide stayed about the same. California smoking rates from 1998 to 2001 declined slightly.

Mortality Rates, 1995 and 2001
*rates per 100,000

United States California
1995 2001 1995 2001
Heart Disease 280.7 245.8 216.3 197.2

Stroke 60.1 57.4 51.4 52.3

All cancers 204.9 194.4 162.8 155.8
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 2003

Re: Help with California Deaths

There is a lot information missing for a meaningful analysis. It would be interesting to see the total mortality rate, as none of the partial mortalities attributed to any cause (often arbitrarily) mean anything without comparing to the total rate. (of course to see a better picture one needs to included migration and total population figures for the period too)

Since the probability of dying is 1 if any cause of death is really reduced, then other causes of death MUST eventually increase. I remember reading with amusement a newspaper article commenting on how little heart disease there is in Camaroon (or some west african country) compared to Europe. They were seriously intimating that their diet or lifestyle was somehow "healthier"? The falacy of their argument being that, of course, in africa they died of other causes long before heart disease, a disease mainly of the elderly, manifests itself.