JMA,
Continuing the conversation of job risk, here are some more statistics.
As of January 2010, from
Congressional Research Service:
OIF: 4,410 KIA, 31,942 WIA
OEF: 2,299 KIA, 19,572 WIA
Troop levels also from CRS:
Cumulative FY02 -FY10:
OIF: 1,013,200
OEF: 238,300
Combined: 1,251,500
That comes out to the following hazard rate of KIA/WIA rate per 100,000 of:
OEF: 964 KIA; 8,213 WIA; 9,177 combined
OIF: 435 KIA; 3,152 WIA; 4,116 combined
OEF/OIF: 536 KIA; 4,116 WIA; 4,652 combined
Now, that's wartime. In comparison, during the eight years of the Clinton administration, there were 7,500 military deaths (I'm assuming most non-combat related). That gives an approximate rate of 53.72 deaths per 100,000.
As of 2007, the BLS had the following deaths per 100,000 rates for the jobs listed in the previous post:
1. Fishers: 111.8
2. Loggers: 86.4
3. Pilots: 70.7
4. Iron/Steel workers: 45.5
5. Famers: 39.5
6. Roofers: 29.4
7. Electrical workers: 29.1
8. Drivers: 28.2
9. Refuse collectors: 22.8
10. Police: 21.8
...
12. Construction: 19.5
13. Firefighters: 17.4
So, yes, the obvious answer is that military service
during a time of war is more dangerous than any civilian job. But during a time of peace, it is more dangerous to be a fisherman, logger, or pilot.