The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1924-12-22
HEALTH NOT FULLY PROTECTED

are often valuable in arousing sentiment
for necessary reforms. 1t is easy for
people to be nursed into the view that
conditions in their home town compare
favorably with those of any other COM
munity, when officials and politicians
do not want to be bothered with burden
some duties in the public behalf. But
every community knows that what others
have done it can do.
Take, for example, a comparison be-
tween the city of Norfolk, Virginia, and
Birmingham. In statistics for 1923 re-
Gently set forth by one of leading life
insurance companies as respects motor
vehicle casualties in thirty-eight cities
with populations of more than hundred
thousand, Norfolk showed the smallest
number per hundred thousand people.
Birmingham showed the highest number
of such casualties per hundred thousand
people, and more than three times as
many as Norfolk. In a recent official
statement from Washington bearing upon
the death rates in forty-four cities with
populations exceeding 100000, for which
the rate was figured only on the popu-
lation as a whole, the highest, or lit
per 1000 population, appears for San
Antonio, Texas, and the lowest, or 81
per 1000 population, for Portland,
Oregon. Of course, there would be a
difference in cities with relatively large
negro populations. Here is where the
comparison between Norfolk and Bir
mingham is significant. Among eleven
cities in the more than 100000 class for
which the rate was figured on the race
division, Norfolk showed the lowest rates
for both whites and negroes, with 8.3 and
1877 respectively per 1000 population.
Birmingham's record was IL and 21.1
respectively, per 1000.
When certain conditions in the two
cities are compared, the differences in
their records are significant. Norfolk is
noted for it's narrow streets. 1t has less
than ten square miles of area, with nearly
as large a population as Birmingham, and
a very large immediate suburban popu-
'lation, something like eighty thousand
Birmingham has about fifty square miles
of area, and less immediate suburban
population than Norfolk. With all this
additional territory, and with very much
wider streets, why should Norfolk show
a creditable motor-casualty record, and
Birmingham very discouraging one, or
something like two hundred per cent.
larger than that of Norfolk?
Again, as respects the comparative
death rates, Norfolk is low lying and sur
rounded by swamp lands. There are in
Vulnerable mosquitoes, and most of the
people have to sleep under mosquito-bars
large part of the year for peace and
protection. The city and immediate out
living territory have never been noted for
naturally healthful surroundings except
for what the public authorities have done
to improve health conditions. Birming-
ham is high and healthy in its natural
conditions, and has comparatively few
mosquitoes. Yet Birmingham In 1928
showed a much higher mortality rate
than Norfolk. The figures show that Biz
mingham's death rate for 1928 was
around thirty per cent. larger than Nor
folks for whites, and about twelve per
cent. greater for negroes. Under the re-
spectiye conditions Norfolk's death rate
would be expected to show up much
larger, instead Of much smaller than
Birmingham's.
Apparently, despite activities OF Biz
mingham's health authorities in certain
directions, there is still room for decided
improvement. No one perceives this more
clearly than those connected with the
health department. They are handi-
capped, however, by the official myopia
of those upon whom they must depend
for revenue. The same civil officials
who have short vision with respect to
public health administrations are those
likewise who have failed to cope ade-
quately with the increasing rate OF auto
mobile casualties. The life of the peo-
pie of Birmingham is at stake, and the
comfortable health and safety factors are
merely measure of how many lives this
community is willing unnecessarily to sac
rifice every year to official negligence.