robert l dolezal <[log in to unmask]> wrote: <<<<<<<snip Senator Jon Kyl 702 Senate Hart Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Attention: Tom Alexander, Legislative Aide snip Whatever the current number, as the "Baby Boomers" grow older the Parkinsonian population will skyrocket. Here is the Census Bureau's numbers, with emphasis on the 55 and older population: Pop. 55Yrs. % of the Pop. %of Pop.55 Year U.S. Pop.(mil.) &Older(mil.) Increase55&Up &Older 1995 263.4 54.9 - 20.84% 2000 276.2 59.0 38.3% 21.36 2005 288.3 65.9 57.0 22.86 2010 300.4 74.6 71.9 24.83 2025 338.3 102.6 73.9 30.33 Notice the increasing rate of growth projected in the "55&Up" population. Four years from now almost one-half of our population growth will be "55&Up." By 2010 almost three-quarters will be in that category. What is significant about age 55? Fifty-seven is the average age of diagnosis for Parkinson's. As the growth of population in this age group accelerates, the incidence of Parkinson's disease in America will also accelerate.>> I tried to understand this. 1995 263.4 54.9 - 20.84% 2000 276.2 59.0 38.3% 21.36 2005 288.3 65.9 57.0 22.86 2010 300.4 74.6 71.9 24.83 2025 338.3 102.6 73.9 30.33 One problem that I have is with the fourth column data. It does not make sense to me. The percentage of those 55 & up (column 5) is fine: divide column 3 by column 2 to get the values in column 5. I tried numerous things to get the column 4 values, but did not find a way. The probability is that the math done was to divide the difference in number over 54 for each period of years by the difference in total population for that period. But this gives: blank 0.3203125 0.5702479 0.719008 0.73878 which is the values except for the first shown as 38.3%, when it is 32.03%. If these percentages have meaning, they are "percentage of persons becoming 55 years of age per half-decade", except that the last value must be divided by 3 because it is for three half-decades. The table column would then be: blank 0.3203 0.5703 0.7190 0.2463 The sentence: "Four years from now almost one-half of our population growth will be "55&Up"." is not accurate imo. "By 2010 almost three-quarters will be in that category." is not semantically valid imo. sincerely, ron -- ron 1936, dz PD 1984 Ridgecrest, California Ronald F. Vetter <[log in to unmask]> http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~rfvetter