Scandinavia...

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Don't bother with why me, he still can't get the difference between Scandinavia and Norden. He thinks Finland is Scandinavian.

[_Drifting]

Don't bother with why me, he still can't get the difference between Scandinavia and Norden. He thinks Finland is Scandinavian.

LOL, my wife is into Nordic knit at the moment!

[_Chap]

No. Tell me what low marriage rates, gay rights, atheism and agnosticism have to do with the state of the freaking economy?

It doesn't. Norway, Sweden and Finland have high domestic abuse rates. Many families are in bad shape in all three countries. And when one considers the poplulation of each society and the amount of abuse going on, we can say that if all were just small cities in the USA, they would be considered sick cities because of alcohol and domestic abuse.

why me,

Am I correct in thinking that a world organization for children published a study that showed, based on a significant number of metrics that Scandinavia was the best place in which to raise children?
I seem to recall it covered, nutrition, saftey, wealth, education etc.

The CIA has uncovered shocking statistics showing how dangerous it is to be a new-born child in hell-holes like Sweden compared to the good of US of A, where doctors and patients are free from socialist interference, and parents have a standard of living and education that ensures they can give their kids the care they need. The figures shown are in the form

Rank order, Country
Infant mortality, explained as being "the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year ... This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country."

The US is number 175, with 6.06 deaths per 1,000 in the first year of life, and Sweden is number 219, with 2.74 deaths per 1,000. That is less than half the US figure.

170 Poland
6.54


171 Serbia
6.52


172 Lithuania
6.27


173 Belarus
6.25


174 Croatia
6.16


175 United States
6.06


176 Faroe Islands
6.06


177 Northern Mariana Islands
5.79


178 New Caledonia
5.71


179 European Union
5.61

180 Hungary
5.31

181 Taiwan
5.18

182 Greece
5.00


183 Canada
4.92


184 Cuba
4.90


185 New Zealand
4.78


186 San Marino
4.72


187 Wallis and Futuna
4.67


188 Portugal
4.66


189 United Kingdom
4.62


190 Australia
4.61


191 Netherlands
4.59


192 Luxembourg
4.44


193 Belgium
4.33


194 Isle of Man
4.32


195 Austria
4.32


196 Denmark
4.24


197 Slovenia
4.17


198 Korea, South
4.16


199 Liechtenstein
4.15


200 Israel
4.12


201 Switzerland
4.08


202 Jersey
3.98


203 Ireland
3.85


204 Andorra
3.80


205 Czech Republic
3.73


206 Malta
3.69


207 Guernsey
3.55


208 Germany
3.54


209 Norway
3.52


210 Anguilla
3.47


211 Finland
3.43


212 Spain
3.39


213 Italy
3.38


214 France
3.29


215 Iceland
3.20


216 Macau
3.18


217 Hong Kong
2.90


218 Japan
2.78


219 Sweden
2.74


220 Bermuda
2.47


221 Singapore
2.32


222 Monaco
1.79

[_Drifting]

This is the unbelievable bit...

The CIA has uncovered...

[_Hoops]

[quote="Chap"][quote]
What is the reason for these numbers?

[Guest]

What is the reason for these numbers?

Lack of god, lots of gays, and fish.

[_Chap]

What is the reason for these numbers?

I presume you are asking why I cited these data, so I shall explain that to you. (If that was not your question, please explain more clearly what your question actually was.)

Whyme, whose writing I only see when somebody quotes it, suggested that Scandinavia (the topic of this thread) was a place in which children are badly mistreated in comparison with the situation in the US.

An important indicator of how well children are treated is, however, whether they die or not, and infant mortality is, as the CIA suggests, widely accepted as an important index of health. The figures published by the CIA show that a baby in the US is more than twice as likely to die in the first year of life than it is in Sweden.

That suggests, does it not, that whyme may not be painting a very accurate picture of how well children are treated in the US and Scandinavia, seen comparatively. And that is why I posted these figures.

[_Hoops]

What is the reason for these numbers?

I presume you are asking why I cited these data, so I shall explain that to you. (If that was not your question, please explain more clearly what your question actually was.)

Whyme, whose writing I only see when somebody quotes it, suggested that Scandinavia (the topic of this thread) was a place in which children are badly mistreated in comparison with the situation in the US.

An important indicator of how well children are treated is, however, whether they die or not, and infant mortality is, as the CIA suggests, widely accepted as an important index of health. The figures published by the CIA show that a baby in the US is more than twice as likely to die in the first year of life than it is in Sweden.

That suggests, does it not, that whyme may not be painting a very accurate picture of how well children are treated in the US and Scandinavia, seen comparatively. And that is why I posted these figures.

Sorry. I should have been more clear. What do the numbers indicate? You seem to have an idea of what comment these numbers are making about the U.S. and other countries. What is that comment? What makes the numbers as they are?

[_DrW]

I have lived and worked in Europe for many years, and have spent a lot of time in Norway, Denmark and Sweden.

Of course you have. I'm not surprised at all. My ONLY surprise is that in this post you were not able to mention that you are well-educated (whatever the he** that means) and are a brilliant scientist, having worked with, discussed weighty matters with, and generally hob-nobbed with the intellectual elites of modern society. Are you sure you and DCP don't have the same playbook?

Hoops,

The only other scientist that I have mentioned as having worked with on this board is the former wife of Mark Stoneking (and you will note that I did not mention her name). I have also mentioned Michael Persinger, the scientist who developed the God Helmet, simply because I worked in the same area as he does and therefore know the man.

Like several others on this board, I happen to be a scientist (albeit one who no longer works at the bench). I have never claimed to be a brilliant scientist. Of my more than 900 posts on this board, I doubt that more than two have mentioned other scientists with whom I have worked. That would be less than 0.3%, which, you must admit, is hardly up to DCP's high standard.

Or a jealous paramour. Nonetheless, if we could only get rid of those pesky, backwoods, ignorant, bigoted, intolerant, narrow-minded, prejudiced, dictatorial, religious conservatives then the world would be just so wonderful.

Yes, let's make sure we all know who your REALLY talking about. See, all the atheist/agnostics/humanists are so brilliant that they get it, but the others... well, they need your explanation and guidance now more than ever.

Think about this, Hoops.

In one of the early Republican debates for the 2008 election, the moderator asked for a show of hands from the candidates as to whether they believed in evolution. As I recall, all but one indicated that they were creationists.

Of this year's candidates for the Republican nomination, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry are creationists, Newt Gingrich can't make up his mind, and Mitt Romney won't say, although he has said in the past that he has no problem with evolution. (No wonder the conservatives do not like Romney).

This, my friend, is but one symptom of the overt institutionalized mass ignorance that religious conservatives seem to demand of their candidates.

If any additional evidence is required, one need only consider the continued popularity among the religious right of that famous creationists Sarah Palin, as evidenced by their response to her speech at CPAC last week.

They don't seem comfortable unless the individual who leads this country makes pronouncements of belief that show them to be, well, ignorant of facts that most high school kids would know.

Politicians who are willing to pander to the science-denying religious right like this certainly need help and guidance from someone.

[_Chap]

What is the reason for these numbers?

I presume you are asking why I cited these data, so I shall explain that to you. (If that was not your question, please explain more clearly what your question actually was.)

Whyme, whose writing I only see when somebody quotes it, suggested that Scandinavia (the topic of this thread) was a place in which children are badly mistreated in comparison with the situation in the US.

An important indicator of how well children are treated is, however, whether they die or not, and infant mortality is, as the CIA suggests, widely accepted as an important index of health. The figures published by the CIA show that a baby in the US is more than twice as likely to die in the first year of life than it is in Sweden.

That suggests, does it not, that whyme may not be painting a very accurate picture of how well children are treated in the US and Scandinavia, seen comparatively. And that is why I posted these figures.

Sorry. I should have been more clear. What do the numbers indicate? You seem to have an idea of what comment these numbers are making about the U.S. and other countries. What is that comment? What makes the numbers as they are?

The numbers indicate that if you have a baby in the US, the chances that it will die in the first year of life are more than twice as large as they are in Sweden, and that the US is also well behind other developed countries, including Britain, France and Germany, and certainly all Scandinavian countries in the task of keeping babies from dying.

Since keeping a baby alive is a pretty basic aim of the care one provides for it, it is reasonable to conclude that, taken as a whole, the systems that provide for the care and nurture of little children in countries where fewer babies die are better than those where more babies die.

So, contrary to what whyme asserted, there are rational grounds for doubting that the child-care situation in Scandinavian countries is worse than in the US, and indeed there are grounds for thinking that it is probably a lot better in important respects.