Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These surveys always make me smile.... telling that places like Liverpool.. have a higher rate of deaths compared to Dorset....and putting it down to drink and smoking........ NOW anyone whos seen Dorset will understand why they may live longer than city dwellers ....Id say its more work related and pollution thats the main cause and not bad habits... Im dreading them heading further up to Scotland with the west of Scotland with a high death rate through illness... dont they ever consder all the dangerous jobs that people did and some still do here and in other cities... carpet factories. bleach and dye works..weaving.. all these jobs were bad for health , and I feel breathing problems get past down through generations and harm health.. but thats just my opinion....Dorset will be much cleaner and healthier in all ways..if only we were all born lucky enough to live in places like this... Maybe on todays morning news they had to fill in a slot and this came up.... as weve all known about the dangers of living in cities for years, its nothing new..
It's more of an urban-rural divide than a north-south divide.. the North/Midlands just happen to have the UK's largest urban areas all within vicinity of one another. Look at Brighton and Bristol and they score terrible too for early deaths, despite both being well-off. Ditto for large parts of London. However, all of these cities have large variations and if you looked at these early deaths at a more local level, no doubt you would see significant differences across short areas. Plus, cities like Manchester have very tight boundaries which exclude its more affluent suburbs in Trafford and Stockport, so appears worse than it actually is.
But, whatever the cause for these early deaths, I don't want to live in the countryside, I enjoy my city life, I enjoy the buzz, I enjoy the busyness, I enjoy the shopping, the eating out, the drinking - the countryside is alright for frequent visits, but I think I would be desperately bored if I lived in Dorset.
These surveys always make me smile.... telling that places like Liverpool.. have a higher rate of deaths compared to Dorset....and putting it down to drink and smoking........ NOW anyone whos seen Dorset will understand why they may live longer than city dwellers ....Id say its more work related and pollution thats the main cause and not bad habits... Im dreading them heading further up to Scotland with the west of Scotland with a high death rate through illness... dont they ever consder all the dangerous jobs that people did and some still do here and in other cities... carpet factories. bleach and dye works..weaving.. all these jobs were bad for health , and I feel breathing problems get past down through generations and harm health.. but thats just my opinion....Dorset will be much cleaner and healthier in all ways..if only we were all born lucky enough to live in places like this... Maybe on todays morning news they had to fill in a slot and this came up.... as weve all known about the dangers of living in cities for years, its nothing new..
I'm sure that there's a lot of truth in what you're saying, but I think we can go even further. There were a series of studies conducted (the 'Whitehall Studies') from the late 1960's into the health/life expectancies of workers within the civil service. What was found was that those at the 'bottom' of the occupational grades (messengers/doormen etc) had a mortality rate 3x higher than those at the 'top' of the civil service, and that as occupational grade increased - so mortality declined and overall health increased.
Naturally, it was assumed that those in the bottom grades drank more, smoked more, exercised less etc. This was true, but even when these bad habits were normalised for, those at the bottom still had significantly more problems than those at the top.
There has been a great deal of argument in academic circles over the reasons behind this finding. One theory suggests that those at the bottom in an organisation have little or no control over their own circumstances while at work, and that the combination of having little control and high demands placed on them is a cause of stress; and that this stress is the prime mover. The argument goes that while those in higher positions of authority also have high demands placed on them, they have much greater freedom to solve the problems that they're faced with and this ameliorates some of the stress. Another theory is that those at the bottom are most affected by unexpected changes in the workplace, again with little or no control over it, and that this causes stress which explains the difference. Another theory again is that merely being paid less is likely to lead to more people at the bottom experiencing financial difficulties, which is unto itself one of the major causes of stress and anxiety. Another theory again is that self-esteem increases in higher positions of authority, and having a job that one cannot take much self-esteem from is unto itself depressing and contributes to the development of other problems.
All of the above sound reasonably convincing to me, and I suspect (whether or not they represent the full picture) that they must contribute to the health differences found. What it might also explain is some of the difference in the so-called 'North-South divide' as it pertains to healthcare. It seems likely that a disproportionate number of senior positions in Government and the private sector are in London and the South-East. If we assume that those working in the 'provinces' are working at a relatively lower occupational grade, then that might also go some way to explaining some of the difference in health/mortality between North & South.
It is far too simplistic to suggest that everyone living in rural Dorset is experiencing an idyllic life.
There is rural poverty but it can be hidden from view. There are also drug problems and indeed many of the social malaises that are seen in larger communities.
Personally I blame Escape To The Country for perpetuating various misnomers about living outside of towns.
What I do find frustrating is how people use the excuse of poverty to indulge in eating unhealthily. Laziness and ignorance might be good excuses but it is often more expensive to live on a diet of junk food.
I agree there Jezer, it is more expensive to eat junk food, much more... I was listening to the news this morning , telling of how high kids diabetes type 2 is now with all the junk food being given to kids.. and not enough exercise..
I think it'll be very interesting to look at how the regional death rate figures might change over the next 20-30 years now that we have so little industry anywhere.
The north was a region of industry- Mills, Ship Building, coal mining etc when the people who are dying now were of working age. They worked and often lived in poor conditions ans were exposed to things that we haven't been. The people that would have worked these jobs then now work in shops or call centers etc and have a whole new set of risks factors.
This is what my husband says when they bang on about smoking and lung cancer (he's a none smoker) - how do they know that the connection is with smoking and not occupational/ environmental exposure to dust, smoke, asbestos etc
In addition we didn't have preventative healthcare then, or anything like the healthcare technology that we do now. I remember my Grandmother having a heart attack in 1976. It was like life was over. There were no stents or bypasses. Just fairly primitive drugs to try and manage BP and heart failure.
Also , people who belong to lower socio-economic classes tend to be more stoic when it comes to health problems and less likely to seek help.
At the moment heart attacks and stroke numbers are falling, but wait for maybe 30 years and see where all these kids with type 2 diabetes are.
.
Of course cancers and other illnesses are through more exposures than smoking. what were using daily to clean and on our bodies, not to mention, diesel, petrol. air fresheners etc.. all dangerous to our health....My uncle died aged 25, a non smoker of lung cancer when he worked as a ships plumber in the navy.. asbestos caused it when no one cared...
It is far too simplistic to suggest that everyone living in rural Dorset is experiencing an idyllic life.
There is rural poverty but it can be hidden from view. There are also drug problems and indeed many of the social malaises that are seen in larger communities.
Personally I blame Escape To The Country for perpetuating various misnomers about living outside of towns.
What I do find frustrating is how people use the excuse of poverty to indulge in eating unhealthily. Laziness and ignorance might be good excuses but it is often more expensive to live on a diet of junk food.
That's not true its more expensive to eat healthily. Try buying a pack of 8 bunches of bananas for 1 Pound!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
