90
Pentagon Data Shows High Suicide Rates Among Troops Exposed to Blasts (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/news@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Hegar@fedia.io 22 points 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.”

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 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 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 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 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 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 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 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 a 100% increased 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 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 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

[-] Hegar@fedia.io 2 points 3 months ago

Yep, NP!

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Stats can be very unintuitive. You’re not alone.

[-] rekorse@lemmy.world 3 points 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 9 points 3 months ago

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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 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.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Thanks. Not only is it not tinnitus but, according to the searching I've been doing:

[The] suicide rate was lower among veterans with tinnitus than veterans without tinnitus

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6580142/

That honestly surprises me.

[-] JohnnySledge@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

I wonder if the lower suicide rate is due to the fact that the individuals with tinnitus actually seek medical attention for it and, as a side effect, get treated for additional health problems as well.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I was thinking the same thing.

[-] gentooer@programming.dev 2 points 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.

[-] faizalr@kbin.run 3 points 3 months ago

Brain damage turns to brain dead.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 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.

this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
90 points (92.5% liked)

News

23287 readers
2283 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world