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.
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?
This correlation seems to have nothing to do with blast exposure as the title suggests From the articleThe 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 troopsHow can the author have this information and come away with this conclusion?The New York Times, that’s why. It’s a paper which drastically lost credibility.