Arkady
President
In replying to another thread, I found an interesting stat -- New York City, despite its reputation for craziness and violence, actually has a suicide rate about half the national average (as well as an unusually low homicide rate for a city). So, out of curiosity, I looked up suicide stats generally, to see where suicide is most prevalent.
Within the US, it's worst in Vegas, which should be a surprise to exactly nobody. But much of the top ten was a surprise: Colorado Springs, Tucson, Sacramento, Albuquerque, Mesa, Miami, Denver, Jacksonville, Pittburgh, and Wichita.
That list didn't coincide at all with my notion of the most depressing places to live, but I wonder if altitude might be one key. Colorado Springs, Denver, and Alburqueque are all at very high altitude (a mile above sea level), while Mesa and Tucson, and Wichita are all well above sea level (1200-2650 feet). Could high altitude drive suicide rates? Low oxygen could contribute to depression, for example. Interesting idea.
The lowest suicide rate cities were also surprsing. NYC had one of the five lowest rates, and so did Detroit, Baltimore, DC, and --the very lowest-- Boston.
It's not terribly surprising to me that few Bostonians and New Yorkers kill themselves, since they're wealthy, exciting, well-managed cities, with great entertainment opportunities, and lots of educated residents. Plus, I'd guess theyave a disproportionate share of people who specifically chose to live there (rather than just having grown up there), so you'd expect a disproportionate share of people who are happy to live there. But the other three low-suicide cities are hell-holes with high murder rates and poverty. What do they have in common that could be driving suicide down? They're all near sea level, but so are most big cities, so that's not it. They have a range of climates, demographis, etc. So it's an interesting puzzle. Anyone have any theories on why those five have such low suicide rates?
In terms of states, the worst suicide rates tend to be in rural, northern states -- Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska, have the worst. Montana's no shock. It's bleak and cold and isolated. The West (excuding California) and South also have serious suicide problems, while the Northeast has the least suicide.
Internationally, suicide rates seem to be higher near the poles and lower near the equator, which makes sense when you consider that people near the poles are dealing with disrupted sleep in the Summer and too little light in the winter. The highest rates are Greenland and Lithuania. Asian countries tend to rank high (South Korea, China, and Japan) and so do former Communist Bloc nations (Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Slovenia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Croatia, Latvia, Moldova, and Serbia are all in the top 20). The US ranks unremarkably in the middle of the pack for wealthy nations, but all the wealthy nations have high suicide rates relative to the third world (the lowest rates are in the Caribbean and Middle East. Oddly, given the earlier conjecture about altitude, Nepal has no suicide.
Within the US, it's worst in Vegas, which should be a surprise to exactly nobody. But much of the top ten was a surprise: Colorado Springs, Tucson, Sacramento, Albuquerque, Mesa, Miami, Denver, Jacksonville, Pittburgh, and Wichita.
That list didn't coincide at all with my notion of the most depressing places to live, but I wonder if altitude might be one key. Colorado Springs, Denver, and Alburqueque are all at very high altitude (a mile above sea level), while Mesa and Tucson, and Wichita are all well above sea level (1200-2650 feet). Could high altitude drive suicide rates? Low oxygen could contribute to depression, for example. Interesting idea.
The lowest suicide rate cities were also surprsing. NYC had one of the five lowest rates, and so did Detroit, Baltimore, DC, and --the very lowest-- Boston.
It's not terribly surprising to me that few Bostonians and New Yorkers kill themselves, since they're wealthy, exciting, well-managed cities, with great entertainment opportunities, and lots of educated residents. Plus, I'd guess theyave a disproportionate share of people who specifically chose to live there (rather than just having grown up there), so you'd expect a disproportionate share of people who are happy to live there. But the other three low-suicide cities are hell-holes with high murder rates and poverty. What do they have in common that could be driving suicide down? They're all near sea level, but so are most big cities, so that's not it. They have a range of climates, demographis, etc. So it's an interesting puzzle. Anyone have any theories on why those five have such low suicide rates?
In terms of states, the worst suicide rates tend to be in rural, northern states -- Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska, have the worst. Montana's no shock. It's bleak and cold and isolated. The West (excuding California) and South also have serious suicide problems, while the Northeast has the least suicide.
Internationally, suicide rates seem to be higher near the poles and lower near the equator, which makes sense when you consider that people near the poles are dealing with disrupted sleep in the Summer and too little light in the winter. The highest rates are Greenland and Lithuania. Asian countries tend to rank high (South Korea, China, and Japan) and so do former Communist Bloc nations (Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Slovenia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Croatia, Latvia, Moldova, and Serbia are all in the top 20). The US ranks unremarkably in the middle of the pack for wealthy nations, but all the wealthy nations have high suicide rates relative to the third world (the lowest rates are in the Caribbean and Middle East. Oddly, given the earlier conjecture about altitude, Nepal has no suicide.
