You keep saying that about different things, Tom, but I don't think anything much has a truly exact meaning.
In the case of "war related" (the term used in the Lancet), the Lancet study described exactly what they were including, and it covered all violence as well as health factors, etc. The UN study called their figure "warfare" deaths, which is, without further explanation, anything but an exact item.
To me, "warfare" deaths would be quite different from "violent war related" deaths, the former being strictly resulting from battles fought between coalition forces and anyone else while the latter would include these plus deaths from assassinations, death squads, kidnapping-murders, inter-factional fighting, etc. - a considerably higher figure, I think you have to agree.
You also didn't take into acount the generally accepted increase in death rates since the time of the UN study.
So - as I said, the ranges do overlap quite widely if you take these factors into account. If you don't want to take them into account, then IMO you are being hypocritical.
Current Events » in reply to re: Well...
Exact meanings
The whole thread (38 posts)
- Johns Hopkins/Lancet pull another number out of their asses.
- Another study for comparison
- Considering no nukes, WMDs, no al-Qaeda no link to WTC - how many is too many? (n/t)
- Link to actual study
- That's nothing. Remember the ONE MILLION IRAQI CHILDREN who supposedly died due to the sanctions?
- Does it make you feel better, Tom...
- What should be disturbing....
- Cluster surveys, used in this study, are routinely used to determine rates of death in natural disasters.
- Got any idea why Bush & Co. don't keep track of Iraqi deaths?