Muscatine

BS

The little graph showing the average age of death at 100 years has disappeared from my computer.   Same for everybody?

I've looked in the paper at the obituaries and there are a lot of deaths in the 60's and 70's but I don't see any in the 130's and 140's to make the average come out to 100.

I've also seen where babys die at birth but have never seen where an adult died at 200.

Is there one con out there that has the courage, intelligence and integrity to say they agree that the post was hokum?

I don't expect anything from BS.

Uh.....okay....anybody else get this this? I especially like the word "hokum"......!

My source was/is the web sight ancestry.com 

http://www.ancestry.com/facts/Muscatine-life-expectancy.ashx

They based their chart on data from the social security death index data.

It looks like the chart is still there.

I grant that the "100" data point is an obvious entry error.  I'm more interested in the overall chart, which shows an age at death level above the national average.

Rather than me doing more work to proove I'm correct, if you are going to criticize me, you need to do some work to proove me wrong with data.  In other words, come up with your own data showing Muscatine to have a worse record for age at death than the national average, or shut your foolish yap.

By the way, there are other sights showing Muscatine and Muscatine county to be about average or below average in premature deaths.  Do I need to lead you to them by the nose?

I never said age at death was greater or not.   I just pointed out your graph was hokum.