According to this site lumberjacks head the list with 118 fatalities per 100,000:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/
But how does the presidents job compare? There have been at least 3 presidents assassinated from less than 50. Am I comparing it wrongly?
2007-08-20 04:14:55 · 8 answers · asked by HoundDog 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Looking further I believe 4 presidents have been assassinated in roughly 250 years. Which scaled up would make 1,600 per 100,000 making it roughly 10 times as dangerous as a lumberjack.
Is there a more dangerous job?
2007-08-20 05:10:03 · update #1
The most dangerous job is those of the GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan! No one can top their position for risk!
2007-08-20 05:47:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that you are looking at it all wrong. Don't compare the number of assassinations to the number of total people who've held the position. Think of it this way. In 231 years four have died, and six others have survived attempts on their lives. I'd say that over that span of time, it's a pretty good track record. Especially considering how polarized our society can get over issues. Four dead beats 118 by a very large margin.
But also, according to those most dangerous job TV shows, the most dangerous job in the world is crab fishing. I don't have the stats on it, but a lot of them die in that job.
2007-08-20 05:27:45 · answer #2 · answered by SpaceMonkey67 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Really? Name another job that gives you 24 hr security, snipers on the roof of your home, people to secure an area hours before you even arrive, bulletproof vehicles, hideouts all over the world AND your own specialized airplane to escape in case of nuclear war? Actually, I guess most CEOs have that, but still... it's definitely not the most dangerous job.
With all that, I betcha the president could walk up to an ATM at 2am in a bad area and walk down the street counting his money w/o getting mugged. Now YOU try that.
2007-08-20 04:27:50 · answer #3 · answered by that_guy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all those stats are compiled for a single year based upon statistics for that year only. No president was killed in 2002 therefore president would be considered safe in that study. You are compiling stats that go back to the late 1700's which is not a valid comparison.
All that being said, I don't think any job with only one possible occupant would be included in the study.
2007-08-20 04:31:50 · answer #4 · answered by mark 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Statistics can be skewed to get any answer you want.
Being a U.S. President is not the most dangerous job in the world; you're protected 24/7; pampered and waited on hand-and-foot; and (sadly) insulated from reality by a staff of "yes men" who don't have the courage to tell you when you're wrong. The danger lies in the fact that you are often despised by so many, a risk not usually taken in most occupations. -RKO- 08/20/07
2007-08-20 05:08:40 · answer #5 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
enable's see how safeguard you sense after the GOP warhawks attack Iran, and China and Russia pass to conflict with us. possibly you should tell me how lots extra money we could desire to spend than the subsequent 15 worldwide places mixed to make you sense risk-free. Any foreign places coverage expert that may not a dyed interior the wool ideologue says Obama has achieved an extremely solid activity. do no longer pay attention to them, nevertheless. Rupert does not choose you to pay attention that. stay properly ensconced on your tiny room without domicile windows.
2016-10-08 21:42:33 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you had access to true statistics, you would most likely find that factory work in China is about as dangerous as it gets.
2007-08-20 04:27:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is the problem with statics.
You can have the numbers say just what you want to say.
2007-08-20 04:22:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋