3 ms·
There is no way that is correct. What data are you using? [https://www.bls.gov/iif/fatal-injuries-tables/fatal-occupational-injuries-table-a-5-2020.htm https://
by lazide 2y ago
There is no way that is correct. What data are you using? [https://www.bls.gov/iif/fatal-injuries-tables/fatal-occupational-injuries-table-a-5-2020.htm https://www.bls.gov/iif/fatal-injuries-tables/fatal-occupati...]
BLS is combining solder/brazing with welding. And has no concept of industrial vs fab, etc.
- bumby 2y agoYou are conflating serious injury with fatalities.
- lazide 2y agoThat sheet is fatalities. It’s literally in the URL and at the top of the page. See column ‘Total fatal injuries’.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bumby 2y agoRight. But the post you are refuting is talking about "serious injuries" not "fatalities".
- lazide 2y agothey were claiming numbers an order of magnitude less than fatalities.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bumby 2y agoPer hundred workers. Your link is in absolute units of fatalities, their claim is a rate. At the very least, you need the number of workers (which is also available in BLS data) to refute their claim. The data shows roughly 454k workers in the welders, solderers, and brazers occupation series. With their claim of 3.5 severe injuries per 100 worker-careers, that's about 16k severe injuries. If you assume an average career is about 25 years, that's about 636 severe injuries per year, compared to the 48 fatalities per year. So it's an order of magnitude higher (which I think is the direction most people would expect).
- lazide 2y agothanks for tracking that down! I stand corrected.