Logging ranked as second most dangerous profession

[weimedog]

Guess I'm in trouble too! Everything I do is on that list in some form, with the exception of riding Dirt Bikes & Road bikes! le-me see.....farming, logging, driving snow plow/trucks...heavy equipment...I'm DONE if u go buy that logic.

 

[caotropheus]

It is too easy of a question to answer.

You are just born into what you do. It's just who you are. Me or you either one werent meant to push pencils across a desk or sweat it out in a factory.

We are made to sweat it out under the hot sun. No standing on concrete all day, just earth!

You log and I farm. Neither job is the easiest or the best paying, but what else is there?

I know the other guys here that feel like logging or farming, or whatever is the only thing they know, well...they're right. And it's the only thing they want to know.

A man is put on this earth to do a job. Either born into it or just tried it and found that it was right for him. Either way, you know when it's right, and the statistics or pay or whatever else does'nt matter.

I couldn't have said it better. I finished a Ph.D. to understand that! I am not a logger but a farmer as well and I cannot imagine my self away from the Sun (45ºC air temperature today around here!) the mud, the dust, the plants I grow and my dogs that follow me around the all day long. Of course excitement kicks in when I need to preform a task with my trustworthy 460 !

 

[RandyMac]

I have always thought that sawmills were scarier than logging operationg. Don't know why--the noise? Being in a building?

I'm with you on this, mills are dark, dirty, noisy, dangerous and enclosed. I was born in a milltown, followed my Grandpa around while he yelled at people, played baseball in the filingroom, got my ass tanned for walking on logs in the pond, all that milltown kid stuff. I only worked inside for a short time, the remill section didn't like it. There were two jobs that I did want to do, headrig sawyer and debarker operator.

 

[USMC0802]

...and of course the Military isn't considered a "profession"...It’s just the Military.

Two things, first I think with the numbers being factored over a 17 year period where there was very little the military was engaged in full out combat operations with casualties until Afghanistan/Iraq, the number of deaths would appear to be quite low. There were 146 US casualties in the first Gulf War. Approximately 5,600 US deaths in OIF/OEF, seems like a number that high would put it on the list.

However, the second point is the stats are based on deaths per 100,000 in that job. There are over 1.4 million active duty personnel across the 4 branches, and another 1.4, but slightly lower number of reserves.

From 2001-2009, 8 years of active war, averages 700 per year. That's less than 25 deaths per 100,000 across the active duty and reserve components per year for those years. Add in the very few US casualties for the years prior back to 1992 and you can see how that average drops, probably well below the rates of what's on that list.

 

[djmercer1]

It does not matter much, as the occupation rates are not the totals, they are per 100,000. Combining these would only serve to dampen the overall construction picture, as some aspects of construction are more dangerous than others. It is helpful to know which areas of construction are worse in order to address the problems.

but by the same arguement, combining different subtrades of logging (i doubt that a truck driver would have the same risk factor as a faller, but they would both be considered a logger) also serve to damping the appearent fatality rate of logging and farming.... it annoys me that when our osh(whscc) considers our admin staff as construction trades (same as our roofers, drilers etc) when tallying total employed staff for calculating worker comp/insurance rates, clearly not reasonable....

i recognize that the rates are normalized to represent 100000 jobs, but subdividing or combining trades wouldnt affect that number, only total injuries/deaths...

as for why we do it, ive heard being born into it(not with it), being an adrenalin junkie, and money among other reasons.... i believe that its a combination of being born with it and born into it.... i dont buy money or being an adrenalin junkie because you would eventually realize its just not worth it...

 

[logbutcher]

Two things, first I think with the numbers being factored over a 17 year period where there was very little the military was engaged in full out combat operations with casualties until Afghanistan/Iraq, the number of deaths would appear to be quite low. There were 146 US casualties in the first Gulf War. Approximately 5,600 US deaths in OIF/OEF, seems like a number that high would put it on the list.

However, the second point is the stats are based on deaths per 100,000 in that job. There are over 1.4 million active duty personnel across the 4 branches, and another 1.4, but slightly lower number of reserves.

From 2001-2009, 8 years of active war, averages 700 per year. That's less than 25 deaths per 100,000 across the active duty and reserve components per year for those years. Add in the very few US casualties for the years prior back to 1992 and you can see how that average drops, probably well below the rates of what's on that list.

Good points Marine. Reasons that the casualty rates SEEM so low is the obvious: in my branch, Army (ret.), most --- about 12+ to 1 --- are support. Figure in the actual combat boots, you'll find the casualty rates too high. Always too high.

Another point: none, no one, nada ever in any of my units had this "I love danger" hubris found from some here. The tiresome talk on " airbags and chain brakes" is air barking weenie sh__. I would have given anything to have my guys in Kevlar as now. Advanced med care , Better weapons, faster evacs, stronger inter-service supoort in the field due to sat communications, safer gear and training. It was and is a job: get the mission done, protect your men, return whole.

Skip this "most dangerous profession" crap----thank those who protect this way of life. Thanks for serving.

JMNSHO

 

[djmercer1]

Two things, first I think with the numbers being factored over a 17 year period where there was very little the military was engaged in full out combat operations with casualties until Afghanistan/Iraq, the number of deaths would appear to be quite low. There were 146 US casualties in the first Gulf War. Approximately 5,600 US deaths in OIF/OEF, seems like a number that high would put it on the list.

However, the second point is the stats are based on deaths per 100,000 in that job. There are over 1.4 million active duty personnel across the 4 branches, and another 1.4, but slightly lower number of reserves.

From 2001-2009, 8 years of active war, averages 700 per year. That's less than 25 deaths per 100,000 across the active duty and reserve components per year for those years. Add in the very few US casualties for the years prior back to 1992 and you can see how that average drops, probably well below the rates of what's on that list.

the select occupations with high fatality rates are based on 2009 data, only the type of incident causing death plot is based on 17 years of data.....

to include military personnel, i would think we would need to seperate personnel in active areas, stateside and even distinguish among the different branches....

 

[Guido Salvage]

Some interesting discussion. While they are not everyday professions, a couple of others come to mind as dangerous. The first being president (8 out of 44 have died in office) and the second being astronaut (17 deaths in 3 accidents).

 

[djmercer1]

Some interesting discussion. While they are not everyday professions, a couple of others come to mind as dangerous. The first being president (8 out of 44 have died in office) and the second being astronaut (17 deaths in 3 accidents).

i mentioned the president in my first post.... but of the 8, only 4 have been assasinated, others were natural causes... the president causes a delemma as how to treat the data, either annually or over along term... also, how do you divide the list by stability of the country during the assasination or where do you cut of the list by senority(ie pres, vp etc)... no easy answers, the data could easily be skewed...

as for astronauts, test pilots etc, its a much easier data analysis task....