3 ms·
Life expectancy is a tricky statistic to use correctly, because it is significantly dragged lower due to the high rate of death in birth / infancy ( https://en.
by antimagic 11y ago
Life expectancy is a tricky statistic to use correctly, because it is significantly dragged lower due to the high rate of death in birth / infancy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy ). Once that hurdle is gotten over, your life expectancy increases dramatically, so it's not sure as to whether or not Curie actually lived a long life compared to contemporary adults.
Considering that we know that Curie's death was caused by longterm exposure to radiation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#Death ), you could reasonably expect her to have lived a much longer life without such exposure.
- maxerickson 11y agoThis pdf has life tables for England (should not be ridiculously different than France, good enough to illustrate the point either way): http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/Docs/DEIP_Gallop.pdf http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/Docs/DEIP_Gallop.pdf In the 1930s, a 65 year old woman would expect to live an additional 12 or so years.
- precisioncoder 11y agoThese are both excellent points about life expectancy, thank for for sharing this information, looks like I got to learn something today. The overall point however that Marie Curie did live a long fruitful life despite her research and could be considered an excellent role model. There is often a misconception that she died young due to her research, and often the subtext of disapproval because of it. I think it's sad that it's common to belittle someone for quoting her.