A military report on suicide rates broken down by occupation finds the highest rates among categories of troops that often work and train around weapons blasts.
  • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    3 months ago

    This correlation seems to have nothing to do with blast exposure as the title suggests. From the article:

    The rates for these combat occupations are roughly twice those of service members who work in noncombat jobs like data processing or food service.

    The article even mentions there isn’t any implied causation between blasts and non-blast exposed combat troops either in the data presented (except maybe a 4% difference in suicide rate between artillery crews and combat troops with less exposure). The data they are presenting shows the largest drop in rate is between combat and non combat troops! How can the author have this information and come away with this conclusion?

    • Hegar@fedia.io
      0·
      3 months ago

      The paragraph before the one you quoted says it:

      Explosives ordinance disposal team members, who disable roadside bombs and routinely train and work around very large blasts, had the highest suicide rate — 34.77 deaths per 100,000 people per year — followed by infantry and special operations forces; armor crews; and artillery troops; whose rates are closer to 30 deaths per 100,000.

      That’s a 15% bump in suicide for the most blast exposed troops when compared to less blast exposed combat troops.

      Obviously combat exposure vs not is going to have a large effect, but blast exposure seems to have a further effect on top the horrors of combat.

      Also:

      In the Air Force, where blast exposure is rare, there were no significant differences in suicide rates among different military occupations. But among Army and Marine Corps troops, the rates are elevated wherever blasts are part of daily work

      The report presented the data, but made no attempt to grapple with the implications:

      The report released on Wednesday does not mention blast exposure as a factor, and offers no insights into what may be contributing to the different suicide rates. Still, the correlation between deaths by suicide and levels of blast exposure is a common theme in the figures

      • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        Alright, now here’s where i am ready to be wrong… How is an increasing suicide rate from 30 per 100k to 35 per 100k statistically significant? Am i even worse at math than i thought?

        • Hegar@fedia.io
          0·
          3 months ago

          It’s the same reason that an increase from a 0.0001% chance of something happening to a 0.0002% chance is now double the chance of the thing happening.

          More relevantly, 0.0003477% is ~ 15% bigger a number than 0.0003000%. The overall numbers are still low, but the increase is significant.

          • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            3 months ago

            Well then i guess i am wrong, cuz i have to concede 15% is a significant difference. Thanks for explaining that. It still feels like artificial inflation of stats to my mind, but that’s just like, my opinion, man

              • rekorse@lemmy.world
                0·
                3 months ago

                I remember reading over some logic - statistics “puzzles”, where the logic is sound if you follow step by step on paper, but for some reason your mind just has trouble grasping the concept which leads to confusion.

    • Aurix@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      The New York Times, that’s why. It’s a paper which drastically lost credibility.

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    0·
    3 months ago

    I think it’s interesting to note that in WW1 PTSD like symptoms were called shell-shock, and were believed to be a consequence of exposing the human body to artillery fire. Compare that to this quote from the article:

    he was grappling with sleeplessness, depression and severe memory problems.

    “A lot of us are like that,” he said. “It’s not psychological — there is something physiologically wrong. And a lot of guys struggle.”

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    0·
    3 months ago
    New York Times Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

    Name: New York Times Bias: Left-Center
    Factual Reporting: High
    Country: United States of America
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News

    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    Paywalled, but I wonder if it has to do with tinnitus? I imagine that is just maddening. This isn’t anywhere as extreme, but Leonard Nimoy got tinnitus while working on an episode of Star Trek after a squib blew up too close to him and it helped drive him to serious alcoholism which almost totally destroyed his career.

    • gentooer@programming.dev
      0·
      3 months ago

      Back in music school, a teacher with tinnitus made us read the suicide note from a guy with severe tinnitus. That really put us straight with regards to wearing ear protection around loud instruments.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      0·
      3 months ago

      It’s a gift link, so you shouldn’t hit the paywall if you’ve got javascript enabled and aren’t running a browser extension which strips off the gift token.

      TL;DR; It’s due to brain damage.