[ExI] israelis defeat physics

BillK pharos at gmail.com
Mon Mar 9 09:26:46 UTC 2009

On 3/9/09, spike wrote:
> Cool, thanks Fred, that explanation sounds reasonable.  I don't think the
>  clowns that wrote that silly piece have anything to do with the Lancet,
>  which I recall as being quite careful and credible, other than an absurd
>  claim about the number of war deaths in Iraq a few years ago.  I shoulda
>  checked it before assuming all is as it claimed to be.  Apologies Lancet,
>  welcome back.

The Lancet piece about Iraq war deaths is still regarded as best practice.
The ORB and Lancet survey figures are the only statistically accurate
casualty figures which are intended to show the total deaths (rather
than lower limits, provided by surveys of only those deaths reported
to authorities or media agencies).

Just because you don't want to believe that the invasion and
subsequent disruption and civil war eventually caused about an extra
400,000 to one million deaths in Iraq doesn't make the deaths

discusses all the different methods of attempting to count the deaths.

The US army deliberately refused to count deaths because it was bad PR
and civilian record-keeping was almost non-existent during wartime.

Some surveys only count war deaths as due to bullets or bombs.
Casualties, like legs blown off, don't count as war deaths, even if
they die later. (In road accident statistics, casualties are about ten
times deaths).

The Lancet survey tried to compare mortality rates before and after
the war. During the war, having only rudimentary medical care, no
medical supplies, no power, no sanitation, poor food, no police,
rampant criminal activity, sectarian war, etc. obviously made the
mortality rate much worse.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list