document_title: List of average human height worldwide

question_text: average height of a woman in the usa

question_tokens: average height of a woman in the usa

text: List of average human height worldwide

text: Below are average adult human heights by country or geographical region. The original studies and sources should be consulted for details on methodology and the exact populations measured, surveyed, or considered.

text: As with any statistical data, the accuracy of such data may be questionable for various reasons:

text:
Some studies may allow subjects to self-report values. Generally speaking, self-reported height tends to be taller than its measured height, although the overestimation of height depends on the reporting subject's height, age, gender and region.[1][2][3][4]
Test subjects may have been invited instead of chosen at random, resulting in sampling bias.
Some countries may have significant height gaps between different regions. For instance, one survey shows there is 10.8 cm (4 1⁄2 in) gap between the tallest state and the shortest state in Germany.[5] Under such circumstances, the mean height may not represent the total population unless sample subjects are appropriately taken from all regions with using weighted average of the different regional groups.
Different social groups can show different mean height. According to a study in France, executives and professionals are 2.6 cm (1 in) taller, and university students are 2.55 cm (1 in) taller[6] than the national average.[7] As this case shows, data taken from a particular social group may not represent a total population in some countries.
A relatively small sample of the population may have been measured, which makes it uncertain whether this sample accurately represents the entire population.
The height of persons can vary over the course of a day, due to factors such as a height decrease from exercise done directly before measurement (i.e. inversely correlated), or a height increase since lying down for a significant period of time (i.e. positively correlated). For example, one study revealed a mean decrease of 1.54 centimetres (0.61 in) in the heights of 100 children from getting out of bed in the morning to between 4 and 5 p.m. that same day.[8] Such factors may not have been controlled in some of the studies.

text: Note: Letters in grey indicate non-measured height.

text:
Country/Region
Average male height
Average female height
Stature ratio
(male to female)
Sample population /
age range
Share of
pop. over 18
covered[9][10][11]
Methodology
Year
Source

Albania
174.0 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–29 (N= m:649 f:1,806)
23.5%
Measured
2008–2009
[12][13]

Argentina
N/A
159.6 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
19–49
60.4%
Measured
2004–2005
[14]

Argentina
174.46 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.01 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
Healthy, 18 (N= m:90 f:97, SD= m:7.43 cm (3 in) f:6.99 cm (3 in))
2.9%
Measured
1998–2001
[15]

Armenia
N/A
158.1 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,218, SD= f:5.7 cm (2 in))
48.6%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Australia
175.6 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18+
100.0%
Measured
2011–2012
[17]

Australia
177.8 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.8 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18–24
12.4%
Measured
2011–2012
[17]

Austria
179 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–49
54.3%
Measured
2006
[18]

Austria
180 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–24
7.7%
Measured
2006
[18]

Austria
178.80 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
1.07
30–34
7.8%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Austria
179.2 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
167.6 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.07
21 (N= m:53 f:69, SD= m:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.6 cm (2 in))
1.5%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Azerbaijan
171.8 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
165.4 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.04
16+
106.5%
Measured
2005
[21]

Bahrain
165.1 cm (5 ft 5 in)
154.2 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
1.07
19+ (N= m:1,120 f:1,181, SD= m:9.0 cm (3 1⁄2 in) f:7.8 cm (3 in))
97.7%
Measured
2002
[22]

Bahrain
171.0 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
156.6 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18
1.9%
Measured
2009
[23][24]

Bangladesh
N/A
150.6 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:7,368, SD= f:5.5 cm (2 in))
56.2%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Belgium
178.70 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.1%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Belgium
178.6 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
168.1 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.06
21 (N= m:20–49 f:20–49, SD= m:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.3 cm (2 in))
1.7%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Benin
N/A
159.3 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:11,015, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.5%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Bolivia
N/A
151.8 cm (5 ft 0 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:10,302, SD= f:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.6%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Bolivia
160.0 cm (5 ft 3 in)
142.2 cm (4 ft 8 in)
1.13
Aymara, 20–29
N/A
Measured
1970
[25]

Bosnia and Herzegovina
183.9 cm (6 ft 1⁄2 in)
171.1 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
1.07
Students at UBL,19–32 (N= m:178 f:34, SD= m:7.11 cm (3 in) f:6.56 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.4%[26]
Measured
2014
[27]

Brazil
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.8 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18+ (N= m:62,037 f:65,696)
100.0%
Measured
2009
[28][29]

Brazil
173.0 cm (5 ft 8 in)
161.1 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:8,299 f:7,938)
13.0%
Measured
2009
[28]

Brazil – Urban
173.5 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.6 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:6,360 f:6,305)
10.9%
Measured
2009
[28]

Brazil – Rural
170.9 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:1,939 f:1,633)
2.1%
Measured
2009
[28]

Bulgaria
175.2 cm (5 ft 9 in)
163.2 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
N/A
N/A
N/A
2010
[30]

Bulgaria – Sofia
178.1 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.8 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
N/A
N/A
N/A
2010
[30]

Burkina Faso
N/A
161.6 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:7,337, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.5%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Cambodia
N/A
152.4 cm (5 ft 0 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:5,081, SD= f:5.4 cm (2 in))
52.2%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Cameroon – Urban
170.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
161.3 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.06
15+ (N= m:3,746 f:5,078)
53.6%
Measured
2003
[31]

Cameroon – Urban
172.1 cm (5 ft 8 in)
162.0 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.06
35-44 (N= m:558 f:1,156)
8.7%
Measured
2003
[31]

Canada
175.1 cm (5 ft 9 in)
162.3 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
18–79
94.7%
Measured
2007–2009
[32]

Canada
176.0 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
163.3 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
25–44
36.5%
Measured
2005
[3]

Central African Republic
N/A
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,408, SD= f:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
50.0%
Self-reported
1994
[16]

Chad
N/A
162.6 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,393, SD= f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
51.9%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Chile
169.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
156.1 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.09
15+
107.2%
Measured
2009–2010
[33]

Chile
171.2 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
157.2 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.09
25–44
41.2%
Measured
2009–2010
[33]

Chile
171 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
15–24
23.7%
Measured
2009–2010
[33]

China, People's Republic of
167.1 cm (5 ft 6 in)
155.8 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18+
100.0%
Measured
2012
[34]

China, Mainland
172.1 cm (5 ft 8 in)
160.1 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
19
2.1%
Measured
2010
[35]

China, People's Republic of – Urban
170.2 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.6 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
17
0.6%
Measured
2002
[36]

China, People's Republic of – Rural
166.3 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
157.0 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.06
17
1.6%
Measured
2002
[36]

China, People's Republic of – Beijing
174.7 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.3 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
21
0.2%[37]
Measured
2010
[38]

China, People's Republic of – Sichuan
169.2 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
158.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24
0.7%[39]
Measured
2010
[40]

Colombia
170.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.7 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18–22 (N= m:1,528,875 f:1,468,110)
14.1%
Measured
2002
[41]

Colombia
N/A
155.0 cm (5 ft 1 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:22,947, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.8%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Comoros
N/A
154.8 cm (5 ft 1 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:644, SD= f:5.8 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
49.8%
Self-reported
1996
[16]

Congo, Democratic Republic of the
N/A
157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,727, SD= f:8.0 cm (3 in))
52.7%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Congo, Republic of the
N/A
159.0 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:3,922, SD= f:8.1 cm (3 in))
55.7%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Croatia
180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in)
166.49 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18 (N= m:358 f:360, SD= m:6.8 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.6%
Measured
2006–2008
[42]

Cuba – Urban
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
156 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.08
15+
79.2%
Measured
1999
[43]

Czech Republic
180.31 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.22 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
17
1.6%
Measured
2001
[44]

Denmark
180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–20 (N= m:38,025)
5.3%
Measured
2012
[45]

Denmark
181.4 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30
1.5%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Denmark
182.6 cm (6 ft 0 in)
168.7 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.08
23 (N= m:–20 f:20–49, SD= m:NA f:7.4 cm (3 in))
1.6%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Dinaric Alps
185.6 cm (6 ft 1 in)
171.8 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
1.08
17
N/A
Measured
2005
[46]

Dominican Republic
172.7 cm (5 ft 8 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,763, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.8%
Self-reported
2014
[47]

El Salvador
N/A
160.3 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49
50.9%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Egypt
170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:845 f:1,059)
16.6%
Measured
2008
[48]

Egypt
N/A
159.5 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:13,813, SD= f:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.2%
Self-reported
2008
[16]

Estonia
179.1 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
17
2.3%
Measured
2003
[49]

Ethiopia
N/A
157.6 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:3,868, SD= f:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.8%
Self-reported
1997
[16]

Europe
177.6 cm (5 ft 10 in)[50]
N/A
N/A
17–29[51]
N/A
Measured and Self-reported
2001–2012
[12]

Finland
178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.3 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
25–34 (N= m/f:2,305)
19.0%
Measured
1994
[52]

Finland
180.7 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.2 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
−25 (N= m/f:26,636)
9.2%
Measured
2010–2011
[52][53]

Finland
177.9 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.4%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

France
175.6 cm (5 ft 9 in)
162.5 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
18–70 (N= m/f:11,562)
85.9%
Measured
2003–2004
[54][55]

France
174.1 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20+
96.6%
Measured
2001
[7]

France
177.0 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
164.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
20–29
17.5%
Measured
2001
[7]

France
176.2 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.3%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Gabon
N/A
158.4 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,576, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.1%
Self-reported
2000
[16]

Gambia – Rural
168.0 cm (5 ft 6 in)
157.8 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.06
21–49 (N= m:9,559 f:13,160, SD= m:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.6 cm (2 in))
N/A
Measured
1950–1974
[56]

Germany
175.4 cm (5 ft 9 in)
162.8 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
18–79 (N= m/f:19,768)
94.3%
Measured
2007
[5]

Germany
178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
166.1 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18–37
29.2%
Measured
2007
[5]

Germany – Urban[57]
180.6 cm (5 ft 11 in)
168.5 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18–37
7.1%[58]
Measured
2007
[5]

Germany
180.17 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
7.2%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Germany
178 cm (5 ft 10 in)
165 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18+ (N= m:25,112 f:25,560)
100.0%
Self-reported
2009
[59]

Germany
181 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
18–25 (N= m:2,501 f:2,227)
11.3%
Self-reported
2009
[59]

Ghana
N/A
159.3 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,958, SD= f:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.4%
Self-reported
2008
[16]

Ghana
169.5 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
158.5 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–29
14.7%
Measured
1987–1989
[60]

Greece
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
165 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.07
18–49
56.3%
Measured
2003
[18]

Greece
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24
8.5%
Measured
2003
[18]

Greece
178.06 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–26 (N= m:3,982, SD= m:7.05 cm (3 in))
13.7%
Measured
2006–2007
[61]

Greece
177.29 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
9.5%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Greece
178.3 cm (5 ft 10 in)
166.6 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
21 (N= m:20–49 f:20–49, SD= m:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.3 cm (2 in))
1.8%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Guatemala
N/A
147.3 cm (4 ft 10 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,773, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.3%
Self-reported
1998
[16]

Guinea
N/A
158.8 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,563, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.9%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Haiti
N/A
158.6 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,932, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.8%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Honduras
N/A
152.0 cm (5 ft 0 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:11,219, SD= f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.3%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Hong Kong
171.7 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158.7 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18 (N= m:468 f:453, SD= m:5.5 cm (2 in) f:5.7 cm (2 in))
1.4%
Measured
2006
[62]

Hong Kong
173.4 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
160.1 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.08
University students, 19–20 (N= m:291 f:200, SD= m:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.2 cm (2 in))
0.6%[63]
Measured
2005
[64]

Hungary
176 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
Adults
N/A
Measured
2000s
[65]

Hungary
177.3 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
18 (N= m:1,080, SD= m:5.99 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.7%
Measured
2005
[66]

India
164.7 cm (5 ft 5 in)
151.9 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.08
20–49 (N= m:69,245 f:118,796)
69.8%
Measured
2005–2006
[67]

Iceland
181 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
20–49
43.6%
Self-reported
2007
[18]

India – Rural
161.2 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
152.1 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.06
17+ (SD= m:7.0 cm (3 in) f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
72.1%
Measured
2007
[68]

India
166.3 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
152.6 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.09
20
3.0%
Predicted
2005–2006
[68]

Indonesia
158 cm (5 ft 2 in)
147 cm (4 ft 10 in)
1.07
50+ (N= m:2,041 f:2,396, Median= m:158 cm (5 ft 2 in) f:147 cm (4 ft 10 in))
22.5%
Self-reported
1997
[69]

Iran
170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in)
157.2 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
21+ (N= m/f:89,532, SD= m:8.05 cm (3 in) f:7.22 cm (3 in))
88.1%
Measured
2005
[70]

Iran
173.4 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
159.8 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.09
21–25
17.9%
Measured
2005
[70]

Iraq – Baghdad
165.4 cm (5 ft 5 in)
155.8 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.06
18–44 (N= m:700 f:800, SD= m:5.6 cm (2 in) f:16.0 cm (6 1⁄2 in))
76.3%
Measured
1999–2000
[71]

Ireland
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
20–49
61.8%
Measured
2007
[18]

Ireland
179 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.10
20–24
10.4%
Measured
2007
[18]

Ireland
176.60 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30
1.7%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Ireland
177.5 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.5 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
21 (N= m:54 f:20–49, SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:7.6 cm (3 in))
2.4%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Israel
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18–21
9.7%
Measured
2010
[72]

Italy
176.5 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162.5 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
18
1.4%
Measured
1999–2004
[12][24][73]

Italy
174.48 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30
1.6%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Italy
177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
167.8 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.06
21 (N= m:106 f:92, SD= m:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.4%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Ivory Coast
170.1 cm (5 ft 7 in)
159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–29 (SD= m:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.67 cm (2 in))
14.6%
Measured
1985–1987
[60]

Ivory Coast
N/A
159.8 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,600, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.4%
Self-reported
1998
[16]

Jamaica
171.8 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
160.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–74
71.4%
Measured
1994–1996
[74]

Japan
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
20–49
47.2%
Measured
2005
[18]

Japan
172.0 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158.70 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–24 (N= m:1,708 f:1,559, SD= m:5.42 cm (2 in) f:5.30 cm (2 in))
7.2%
Measured
2004
[75]

Japan
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.0 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
17
1.2%
Measured
2013
[76]

Jordan
N/A
158.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,484, SD= f:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.6%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Kazakhstan
N/A
159.8 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,600, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.7%
Self-reported
1999
[16]

Kenya
169.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
N/A
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,600, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.7%
Summary
2016
[77]

Kenya
N/A
158.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,856, SD= f:7.3 cm (3 in))
52.5%
Survey
2016
[16][77]

Korea, NorthNorth Korea
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
154.9 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
Defectors, 20–39 (N= m/f:1,075)
46.4%
Measured
2005
[78]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
157.4 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
20+ (N= m:2,750 f:2,445, Median= m:170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in) f:157.4 cm (5 ft 2 in), SD= m:6.40 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.99 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
96.5%
Measured
2010
[79]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea
173.5 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
160.4 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.08
20–24 (N= m:378 f:298, Median= m:174.0 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in) f:160.5 cm (5 ft 3 in), SD= m:5.16 cm (2 in) f:5.26 cm (2 in))
8.0%
Measured
2010
[79]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea
173.0 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–19 (N= m:339,716)
3.8%
Measured
2016
[80]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea – Seoul
173.3 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–19 (N= m:60,039)
0.8%
Measured
2016
[80]

Kosovo - Prishtina
179.52 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.72 cm (5 ft 5 in)
N/A
Conscripts, 18-20 (N= m:830 f:793, SD= m:7.02 cm, f:4.93 cm )
63.0%
Measured
2017
[81]

Kyrgyzstan
N/A
158.0 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,424, SD= f:5.8 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.4%
Self-reported
1997
[16]

Lesotho
N/A
157.6 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,879, SD= f:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
49.8%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Liberia
N/A
157.3 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,281, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.8%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Lithuania
177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19–25 (N= m:197 SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
14.7%
Measured
2005[82]
[83]

Lithuania – Urban
178.4 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19–25 (N= m:91 SD= m:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
9.9%
Measured
2005[82]
[83]

Lithuania – Rural
176.2 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19–25 (N= m:106 SD= m:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
4.9%
Measured
2005[82]
[83]

Lithuania
181.3 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
167.5 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
18
2.1%
Measured
2001
[84]

Madagascar
N/A
154.3 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:5,024, SD= f:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.6%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Malawi – Urban
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
155 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
16–60 (N= m:583 f:315, SD= m:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:9.4 cm (3 1⁄2 in))
101.1%
Measured
2000
[85]

Malaysia
166.3 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
154.7 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
Malay, 20–24 (N= m:749 f:893, Median= m:166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in) f:155 cm (5 ft 1 in), SD= m:6.46 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.04 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
9.7%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Malaysia
168.5 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
158.1 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.07
Chinese, 20–24 (N= m:407 f:453, Median= m:169 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in) f:158 cm (5 ft 2 in), SD= m:6.98 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.72 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
4.1%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Malaysia
169.1 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
155.4 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.09
Indian, 20–24 (N= m:113 f:140, Median= m:168 cm (5 ft 6 in) f:156 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in), SD= m:5.84 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.18 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.2%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Malaysia
163.3 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
151.9 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.08
Other indigenous, 20–24 (N= m:257 f:380, Median= m:163 cm (5 ft 4 in) f:152 cm (5 ft 0 in), SD= m:6.26 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.95 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.4%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Mali – Southern Mali
171.3 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
160.4 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
Rural adults (N= m:121 f:320, SD= m:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.7 cm (2 in))
N/A
Measured
1992
[88]

Malta
169.9 cm (5 ft 7 in)
159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.06
18+
100.0%
Self-reported
2003
[89]

Malta
175.2 cm (5 ft 9 in)
163.8 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–34
17.5%
Self-reported
2003
[89]

Mexico
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
154 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–49
69.4%
Measured
2006
[18]

Mexico
169 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
155 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.08
20–24
14.5%
Measured
2006
[18]

Mexico
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Middle & upper classes, young adults
N/A
Measured
N/A
[90]

Mexico – Bajío
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Adults
N/A
Measured
N/A
[91]

Mexico – Central
N/A
162 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
26–39
N/A
Measured
N/A
[91]

Mexico – Morelos
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
155 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.08
18–76
1.6%[92]
Self-reported
1998–1999
[93]

Moldova
N/A
161.2 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,757, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
45.9%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Mongolia
168.4 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.07
25–34 (N= m:158 f:181)
27.6%
Measured
2006
[94]

Montenegro
183.2 cm (6 ft 0 in)
168.4 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Students at UCG,18–37 (N= m:178 f:107, SD= m:7.06 cm (3 in) f:5.27 cm (2 in))
3.2%[95]
Measured
2011
[24]

Morocco
N/A
158.5 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:10,334, SD= f:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.7%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Mozambique
N/A
156 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:6,912, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.0%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Namibia
N/A
160.7 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:5,575, SD= f:7.1 cm (3 in))
50.4%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Nepal
163.0 cm (5 ft 4 in)
150.8 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:6,280, SD= f:5.5 cm (2 in))
52.9%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Netherlands
181 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
169 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.07
Caucasians,16–18[96] (N= m:37 f:52, SD= m:6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5 cm (2 in))
3.7%[97]
Measured
2003
[98]

Netherlands
182.70 cm (6 ft 0 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
7.8%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Netherlands
180.8 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.5 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
20+
96.8%
Self-reported
2010
[9][29][99]

Netherlands
183.2 cm (6 ft 0 in)
169.9 cm (5 ft 7 in)
1.08
20–30
16.9%
Self-reported
2010
[99]

Netherlands
183.8 cm (6 ft 1⁄2 in)
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
1.08
21 (N= m:74 f:50, SD= m:7.1 cm (3 in) f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.5%
Self-reported
2009
[100]

New Zealand
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–49
56.9%
Measured
2007
[18]

New Zealand
178 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
20–24
9.1%
Measured
2007
[18]

Nicaragua
N/A
153.7 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49
54.1%
Self-reported
2001
[16]

Nigeria
163.8 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
157.8 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.04
18–74
98.6%
Measured
1994–1996
[74]

Nigeria
167.2 cm (5 ft 6 in)
160.3 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.04
20–29 (N= m:139 f:76, SD= m:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.7 cm (2 in))
33.2%
Measured
2011
[101]

Norway
180.0 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:18,297)
36.0%
Measured
2011
[102]

Norway – Vest-Agder
181.7 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:770)
1.33%
Measured
2011
[102]

Norway – Oslo
179.8 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:1,297)
4.78%
Measured
2011
[102]

Norway – Finnmark
177.5 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:218)
0.54%
Measured
2011
[102]

Norway
179.63 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.5%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Norway
180.3 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–85 (N= m:1534 f:1743)
93.6%
Self-reported
2008–2009
[9][29][103]

Norway
182.4 cm (6 ft 0 in)
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.09
20–25 (SD= m:5.3 cm (2 in) f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
9.5%
Self-reported
2008–2009
[103]

Norway
181.6 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
168.2 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
26–35 (SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
17.0%
Self-reported
2008–2009
[103]

Peru
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
151 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
1.09
20+
93.8%
Measured
2005
[104]

Philippines
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
N/A
N/A
18+
-
Measured
1980
[105]

Poland
178.7 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.1 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18 (N= m:846 f:1,126)
1.6%
Measured
2010
[106]

Portugal
173.9 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
18 (N= m:696)
1.5%
Measured
2008
[12][107]

Portugal
172.30 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
9.7%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Portugal
171 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
161 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.06
20–50
56.7%
Self-reported
2001
[18]

Portugal
173.7 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
163.7 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.06
21 (N= m:87 f:106, SD= m:8.2 cm (3 in) f:5.3 cm (2 in))
1.9%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Qatar
170.8 cm (5 ft 7 in)
161.1 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.06
18
1.9%
Measured
2005
[24][108]

Rwanda
N/A
157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:3,202, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.2%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Romania
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
157 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.10
N/A
N/A
Measured
2007
[109]

Russia
177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.1 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
24
1.9%
Measured
2004
[24][110]

Samoa
N/A
166.6 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
N/A
18–28 (N= f:55 SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
32.6%
Measured
2004
[111]

Saudi Arabia
168.9 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
156.3 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18
3.0%
Measured
2010
[24][112]

Senegal
N/A
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,533, SD= f:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.4%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Serbia
182.0 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
166.8 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Students at UNS,18–30 (N= m:318 f:76, SD= m:6.74 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.88 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.7%[113]
Measured
2012
[114]

Singapore
171 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
160 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
Chinese students at TP,16–18[115] (N= m:52 f:49, SD= m:6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5 cm (2 in))
0.3%[116][117]
Measured
2003
[98]

Slovakia
179.4 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18
2.0%
Measured
2004
[118]

Slovenia – Ljubljana
180.3 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.4 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
19
0.2%[119]
Measured
2011
[120]

South Africa
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.06
19 (N= m:121 f:118)
3.6%
Measured
2003
[121]

Sri Lanka
163.6 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
151.4 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18+ (N= m:1,768 f:2,709, SD= m:6.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
100.0%
Measured
2005–2006
[122]

Sri Lanka
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
154.0 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18–29 (N= m:312 f:427, SD= m:7.1 cm (3 in) f:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
30.7%
Measured
2005–2006
[122]

Spain
173.1 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
18–70 (N= m:1,298 [123][124] )
88.2%
Measured
2013–2014
[125][126]

Spain
N/A
159.6 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
18–70 (N= f:8,217 [127][128] )
83.5%
Measured
2007–2008
[29][124][125][128]

Spain
175.3 cm (5 ft 9 in)
N/A
N/A
18–34 (N= m:554-1,061 [124][129] )
26.8%
Measured
2013–2014
[125][126][130][131]

Spain
N/A
162.6 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
18–19 (N= f:656 [128][132] )
2.4%
Measured
2007–2008
[124][125][128]

Spain
175.5 cm (5 ft 9 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
11.1%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Spain
174 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.07
20–49
57.0%
Self-reported
2007
[18]

Spain
176 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.06
20–24
7.5%
Self-reported
2007
[18]

Spain
178 cm (5 ft 10 in)
166.2 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
21 (N= m:111 f:94, SD= m:6.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.8%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Swaziland
N/A
159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,612, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
51.0%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Sweden
181.5 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
166.8 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.09
20–29
15.6%
Measured
2008
[133]

Sweden
180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
30
8.0%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Sweden
177.9 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
20–74
86.3%
Self-reported
1987–1994
[134]

Switzerland
178.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19 (N= m:12,447, Median= m:178.0 cm (5 ft 10 in), SD= m:6.52 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.5%
Measured
2009
[135]

Switzerland
175.4 cm (5 ft 9 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–74
88.8%
Self-reported
1987–1994
[134]

Taiwan
171.4 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
17 (N= m:200 f:200)
1.7%
Measured
2011
[136][137][138]

Tanzania
N/A
156.6 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:6,033, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.8%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Thailand
170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
STOU students, 15–19 (N= m:839 f:1,636, SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.2%[139]
Self-reported
2005
[140]

Togo
N/A
159.0 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,728, SD= f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.4%
Self-reported
1998
[16]

Tonga
176.1 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
165.3 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.07
40 (N= m:241 f:299)
1.5%
Measured
2001
[141]

Turkey
173.6 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20-22 (N= m:322 f:247)
8.3%
Measured
2007
[12][24][142]

Turkey – Ankara
174.1 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.10
18–59 (N= m:703 f:512, Median= m:169.7 cm (5 ft 7 in) f:157.5 cm (5 ft 2 in), SD= m:6.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
5.1%[143]
Measured
2004–2006
[144]

Turkey – Ankara
176.1 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
18–29 (N= m:390 f:163, Median= m:173.9 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in) f:164.5 cm (5 ft 5 in), SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:7.0 cm (3 in))
2.0%[143]
Measured
2004–2006
[144]

Turkey
N/A
156.4 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,393, SD= f:5.6 cm (2 in))
54.5%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Uganda
N/A
159.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,666, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.4%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

United Arab Emirates
173.4 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
156.4 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.11
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
[145]

United Kingdom – England
175.3 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
16+ (N= m:3,154 f:3,956)
103.2%[146]
Measured
2012
[4]

United Kingdom – England
177.8 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.5 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
25–34 (N= m:415 f:611)
17.2%[146]
Measured
2012
[4]

United Kingdom – Scotland
175.0 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.3 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
16+ (N= m:2,512 f:3,180, Median= m:174.8 cm (5 ft 9 in) f:161.2 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in))
103.0%[146]
Measured
2008
[147]

United Kingdom – Scotland
178.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.5 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
25–34 (N= m:286 f:413, Median= m:178.0 cm (5 ft 10 in) f:163.9 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in))
15.7%[146]
Measured
2008
[147]

United Kingdom – Wales
177.0 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162.0 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
16+
103.2%[146]
Self-reported
2009
[148]

United States
175.7 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.09
All Americans, 20+ (N= m:5,232 f:5,547, Median= m:175.6 cm (5 ft 9 in) f:161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in))
69%
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States
176.4 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162.9 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
All Americans, 20–29 (N= m:937 f:928, Median= m:176.2 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in) f:162.9 cm (5 ft 4 in))
13.9%
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – African Americans
177.4 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.6 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
African Americans, 20–39 (N= m:405 f:418, Median= m:177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in) f:163.7 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in))
3.4%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – Hispanic and Latino Americans
172.4 cm (5 ft 8 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
Hispanic/Latino Americans, 20–39 (N= m:385 f:428, Median= m:172.3 cm (5 ft 8 in) f:159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in))
4.4%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – Mexican Americans
172.2 cm (5 ft 8 in)
158.4 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Mexican Americans, 20–39 (N= m:233 f:247, Median= m:172.1 cm (5 ft 8 in) f:158.7 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in))
2.8%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – Asian Americans
172.3 cm (5 ft 8 in)
158.4 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Non-Hispanic Asians, 20–39 (N= m:260 f:272, Median= m:172.2 cm (5 ft 8 in) f:158.1 cm (5 ft 2 in))
1.3%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – Non-Hispanic whites
178.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
165.0 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
Non-Hispanic White Americans, 20–39 (N= m:715 f:689, Median= m:178.3 cm (5 ft 10 in) f:164.8 cm (5 ft 5 in))
17.1%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

Uruguay
170 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
Adults (N= m:2,249 f:2,114)
N/A
Measured
1990
[151]

Uzbekistan
N/A
159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,635, SD= f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.6%
Self-reported
1996
[16]

Vietnam
162.1 cm (5 ft 4 in)
152.2 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.07
25–29 (SD= m:5.39 cm (2 in) f:5.39 cm (2 in))
15.9%
Measured
1992–1993
[60]

Vietnam
165.7 cm (5 ft 5 in)
155.2 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
Students, 20–25 (N= m:1,000 f:1,000, SD= m:6.55 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.32 cm (2 in))
2.0%[152]
Measured
2006–2007
[153]

Zambia
N/A
158.5 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,091, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.2%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Zimbabwe
N/A
160.3 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,746, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
47.3%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

text: Notes

text: Jump up ^ In this case, data that are representative of the majority of the country or region's adult population are those that factor in over 50% of the country or region's population aged 18 or over.


document_title: Nickel–cadmium battery

question_text: what is the shelf life of a nicad battery

root

text: Nickel–cadmium battery

text: History[edit]

text: The first Ni–Cd battery was created by Waldemar Jungner of Sweden in 1899. At that time, the only direct competitor was the lead–acid battery, which was less physically and chemically robust. With minor improvements to the first prototypes, energy density rapidly increased to about half of that of primary batteries, and significantly greater than lead–acid batteries. Jungner experimented with substituting iron for the cadmium in varying quantities, but found the iron formulations to be wanting. Jungner's work was largely unknown in the United States. Thomas Edison patented a nickel– or cobalt–cadmium battery in 1902,[3] and adapted the battery design when he introduced the nickel–iron battery to the US two years after Jungner had built one. In 1906, Jungner established a factory close to Oskarshamn, Sweden to produce flooded design Ni–Cd batteries.

tag: p

text: In 1932 active materials were deposited inside a porous nickel-plated electrode and fifteen years later began on a sealed nickel-cadmium battery.

text: The first production in the United States began in 1946. Up to this point, the batteries were "pocket type," constructed of nickel-plated steel pockets containing nickel and cadmium active materials. Around the middle of the twentieth century, sintered-plate Ni–Cd batteries became increasingly popular. Fusing nickel powder at a temperature well below its melting point using high pressures creates sintered plates. The plates thus formed are highly porous, about 80 percent by volume. Positive and negative plates are produced by soaking the nickel plates in nickel- and cadmium-active materials, respectively. Sintered plates are usually much thinner than the pocket type, resulting in greater surface area per volume and higher currents. In general, the greater amount of reactive material surface area in a battery, the lower its internal resistance.

text: Today[when?], all consumer Ni–Cd batteries use the "Swiss roll" or "jelly-roll" configuration. This design incorporates several layers of positive and negative material rolled into a cylindrical shape. This design reduces internal resistance as there is a greater amount of electrode in contact with the active material in each cell.[citation needed]

text: Characteristics[edit]

text: The maximum discharge rate for a Ni–Cd battery varies by size. For a common AA-size cell, the maximum discharge rate is approximately 1.8 amperes; for a D size battery the discharge rate can be as high as 3.5 amperes.[citation needed]

text: Model-aircraft or -boat builders often take much larger currents of up to a hundred amps or so from specially constructed Ni–Cd batteries, which are used to drive main motors. 5–6 minutes of model operation is easily achievable from quite small batteries, so a reasonably high power-to-weight figure is achieved, comparable to internal combustion motors, though of lesser duration. In this, however, they have been largely superseded by lithium polymer (Lipo) and lithium iron phosphate (LiFe) batteries, which can provide even higher energy densities.

text: Voltage[edit]

text: Ni–Cd cells have a nominal cell potential of 1.2 volts (V). This is lower than the 1.5 V of alkaline and zinc–carbon primary cells, and consequently they are not appropriate as a replacement in all applications. However, the 1.5 V of a primary alkaline cell refers to its initial, rather than average, voltage. Unlike alkaline and zinc–carbon primary cells, a Ni–Cd cell's terminal voltage only changes a little as it discharges. Because many electronic devices are designed to work with primary cells that may discharge to as low as 0.90 to 1.0 V per cell, the relatively steady 1.2 V of a Ni–Cd cell is enough to allow operation. Some would consider the near-constant voltage a drawback as it makes it difficult to detect when the battery charge is low.

text: Ni–Cd batteries used to replace 9 V batteries usually only have six cells, for a terminal voltage of 7.2 volts. While most pocket radios will operate satisfactorily at this voltage, some manufacturers such as Varta made 8.4 volt batteries with seven cells for more critical applications.

text: Charging[edit]

text: Ni–Cd batteries can be charged at several different rates, depending on how the cell was manufactured. The charge rate is measured based on the percentage of the amp-hour capacity the battery is fed as a steady current over the duration of the charge. Regardless of the charge speed, more energy must be supplied to the battery than its actual capacity, to account for energy loss during charging, with faster charges being more efficient. For example, an "overnight" charge, might consist of supplying a current equal to one tenth the amperehour rating (C/10) for 14–16 hours; that is, a 100 mAh battery takes 10 mA for 14 hours, for a total of 140 mAh to charge at this rate. At the rapid-charge rate, done at 100% of the rated capacity of the battery in 1 hour (1C), the battery holds roughly 80% of the charge, so a 100 mAh battery takes 125 mAh to charge (that is, approximately 1 hour and fifteen minutes). Some specialized batteries can be charged in as little as 10–15 minutes at a 4C or 6C charge rate, but this is very uncommon. It also greatly increases the risk of the cells overheating and venting due to an internal overpressure condition: the cell's rate of temperature rise is governed by its internal resistance and the square of the charging rate. At a 4C rate, the amount of heat generated in the cell is sixteen times higher than the heat at the 1C rate. The downside to faster charging is the higher risk of overcharging, which can damage the battery.[4] and the increased temperatures the cell has to endure (which potentially shortens its life).

text: The safe temperature range when in use is between −20 °C and 45 °C. During charging, the battery temperature typically stays low, around the same as the ambient temperature (the charging reaction absorbs heat), but as the battery nears full charge the temperature will rise to 45–50 °C. Some battery chargers detect this temperature increase to cut off charging and prevent over-charging.

text: When not under load or charge, a Ni–Cd battery will self-discharge approximately 10% per month at 20 °C, ranging up to 20% per month at higher temperatures. It is possible to perform a trickle charge at current levels just high enough to offset this discharge rate; to keep a battery fully charged. However, if the battery is going to be stored unused for a long period of time, it should be discharged down to at most 40% of capacity (some manufacturers recommend fully discharging and even short-circuiting once fully discharged[citation needed]), and stored in a cool, dry environment.

text: Overcharging[edit]

text: Sealed Ni–Cd cells consist of a pressure vessel that is supposed to contain any generation of oxygen and hydrogen gases until they can recombine back to water. Such generation typically occurs during rapid charge and discharge, and exceedingly at overcharge condition. If the pressure exceeds the limit of the safety valve, water in the form of gas is lost. Since the vessel is designed to contain an exact amount of electrolyte this loss will rapidly affect the capacity of the cell and its ability to receive and deliver current. To detect all conditions of overcharge demands great sophistication from the charging circuit and a cheap charger will eventually damage even the best quality cells.[5]

text: Electrochemistry[edit]

text: A fully charged NiCd cell contains:

text:
a nickel(III) oxide-hydroxide positive electrode plate
a cadmium negative electrode plate
a separator, and
an alkaline electrolyte (potassium hydroxide).

tag: ul

text: NiCd batteries usually have a metal case with a sealing plate equipped with a self-sealing safety valve. The positive and negative electrode plates, isolated from each other by the separator, are rolled in a spiral shape inside the case. This is known as the jelly-roll design and allows a Ni–Cd cell to deliver a much higher maximum current than an equivalent size alkaline cell. Alkaline cells have a bobbin construction where the cell casing is filled with electrolyte and contains a graphite rod which acts as the positive electrode. As a relatively small area of the electrode is in contact with the electrolyte (as opposed to the jelly-roll design), the internal resistance for an equivalent sized alkaline cell is higher which limits the maximum current that can be delivered.

text: The chemical reactions at the cadmium electrode during discharge are:

text: The reactions at the nickel oxide electrode are:

text: The net reaction during discharge is

text: During recharge, the reactions go from right to left. The alkaline electrolyte (commonly KOH) is not consumed in this reaction and therefore its specific gravity, unlike in lead–acid batteries, is not a guide to its state of charge.

text: When Jungner built the first NiCd batteries, he used nickel oxide in the positive electrode, and iron and cadmium materials in the negative. It was not until later that pure cadmium metal and nickel hydroxide were used. Until about 1960, the chemical reaction was not completely understood. There were several speculations as to the reaction products. The debate was finally resolved by infrared spectroscopy, which revealed cadmium hydroxide and nickel hydroxide.

text: Another historically important variation on the basic NiCd cell is the addition of lithium hydroxide to the potassium hydroxide electrolyte. This was believed[by whom?] to prolong the service life by making the cell more resistant to electrical abuse. The Ni–Cd battery in its modern form is extremely resistant to electrical abuse anyway, so this practice has been discontinued.

text: Vented cell batteries[edit]

text: Vented cell (wet cell, flooded cell) NiCd batteries are used when large capacities and high discharge rates are required. Traditional NiCd batteries are of the sealed type, which means that charge gas is normally recombined and they release no gas unless severely overcharged or a fault develops. Unlike typical NiCd cells, which are sealed, vented cells have a vent or low pressure release valve that releases any generated oxygen and hydrogen gases when overcharged or discharged rapidly. Since the battery is not a pressure vessel, it is safer, weighs less, and has a simpler and more economical structure. This also means the battery is not normally damaged by excessive rates of overcharge, discharge or even negative charge.

text: They are used in aviation, rail and mass transit, backup power for telecoms, engine starting for backup turbines etc. Using vented cell NiCd batteries results in reduction in size, weight and maintenance requirements over other types of batteries. Vented cell NiCd batteries have long lives (up to 20 years or more, depending on type) and operate at extreme temperatures (from −40 to 70 °C).

text: A steel battery box contains the cells connected in series to gain the desired voltage (1.2 V per cell nominal). Cells are usually made of a light and durable polyamide (nylon), with multiple nickel-cadmium plates welded together for each electrode inside. A separator or liner made of silicone rubber acts as an insulator and a gas barrier between the electrodes. Cells are flooded with an electrolyte of 30% aqueous solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH). The specific gravity of the electrolyte does not indicate if the battery is discharged or fully charged but changes mainly with evaporation of water. The top of the cell contains a space for excess electrolyte and a pressure release vent. Large nickel-plated copper studs and thick interconnecting links assure minimum equivalent series resistance for the battery.

text: The venting of gases means that the battery is either being discharged at a high rate or recharged at a higher than nominal rate. This also means the electrolyte lost during venting must be periodically replaced through routine maintenance. Depending on the charge–discharge cycles and type of battery this can mean a maintenance period of anything from a few months to a year.

text: Vented cell voltage rises rapidly at the end of charge allowing for very simple charger circuitry to be used. Typically a battery is constant current charged at 1 CA rate until all the cells have reached at least 1.55 V. Another charge cycle follows at 0.1 CA rate, again until all cells have reached 1.55 V. The charge is finished with an equalizing or top-up charge, typically for not less than 4 hours at 0.1 CA rate. The purpose of the over-charge is to expel as much (if not all) of the gases collected on the electrodes, hydrogen on the negative and oxygen on the positive, and some of these gases recombine to form water which in turn will raise the electrolyte level to its highest level after which it is safe to adjust the electrolyte levels. During the over-charge or top-up charge, the cell voltages will go beyond 1.6 V and then slowly start to drop. No cell should rise above 1.71 V (dry cell) or drop below 1.55 V (gas barrier broken).[citation needed]

text: In an aircraft installation with a floating battery electrical system the regulator voltage is set to charge the battery at constant potential charge (typically 14 or 28 V). If this voltage is set too high it will result in rapid electrolyte loss. A failed charge regulator may allow the charge voltage to rise well above this value, causing a massive overcharge with boiling over of the electrolyte.[citation needed]

text: Applications[edit]

text: Sealed Ni–Cd cells may be used individually, or assembled into battery packs containing two or more cells. Small cells are used for portable electronics and toys (such as solar garden lights), often using cells manufactured in the same sizes as primary cells. When Ni–Cd batteries are substituted for primary cells, the lower terminal voltage and smaller ampere-hour capacity may reduce performance as compared to primary cells. Miniature button cells are sometimes used in photographic equipment, hand-held lamps (flashlight or torch), computer-memory standby, toys, and novelties.

text: Specialty Ni–Cd batteries are used in cordless and wireless telephones, emergency lighting, and other applications. With a relatively low internal resistance, they can supply high surge currents. This makes them a favourable choice for remote-controlled electric model airplanes, boats, and cars, as well as cordless power tools and camera flash units.

text: Larger flooded cells are used for aircraft starting batteries, electric vehicles, and standby power.

text: Popularity[edit]

text: Advances in battery-manufacturing technologies throughout the second half of the twentieth century have made batteries increasingly cheaper to produce. Battery-powered devices in general have increased in popularity. As of 2000, about 1.5 billion Ni–Cd batteries were produced annually.[6] Up until the mid-1990s, Ni–Cd batteries had an overwhelming majority of the market share for rechargeable batteries in home electronics.

text: At one point, Ni–Cd batteries accounted for 8% of all portable secondary (rechargeable) battery sales in the EU, and in the UK for 9.2% (disposal) and in Switzerland for 1.3% of all portable battery sales.[7][8][9]

text: In the EU the 2006 Battery Directive restricted sales of Ni–Cd batteries to consumers for portable devices.

text: Availability[edit]

text: Ni–Cd cells are available in the same sizes as alkaline batteries, from AAA through D, as well as several multi-cell sizes, including the equivalent of a 9 volt battery. A fully charged single Ni–Cd cell, under no load, carries a potential difference of between 1.25 and 1.35 volts, which stays relatively constant as the battery is discharged. Since an alkaline battery near fully discharged may see its voltage drop to as low as 0.9 volts, Ni–Cd cells and alkaline cells are typically interchangeable for most applications.

text: In addition to single cells, batteries exist that contain up to 300 cells (nominally 360 volts, actual voltage under no load between 380 and 420 volts). This many cells are mostly used in automotive and heavy-duty industrial applications. For portable applications, the number of cells is normally below 18 cells (24 V). Industrial-sized flooded batteries are available with capacities ranging from 12.5 Ah up to several hundred Ah.

text: Comparison with other batteries[edit]

text: Recently, nickel–metal hydride and lithium-ion batteries have become commercially available and cheaper, the former type now rivaling Ni–Cd batteries in cost. Where energy density is important, Ni–Cd batteries are now at a disadvantage compared with nickel–metal hydride and lithium-ion batteries. However, the Ni–Cd battery is still very useful in applications requiring very high discharge rates because it can endure such discharge with no damage or loss of capacity.

text: When compared to other forms of rechargeable battery, the Ni–Cd battery has a number of distinct advantages:

text:
The batteries are more difficult to damage than other batteries, tolerating deep discharge for long periods. In fact, Ni–Cd batteries in long-term storage are typically stored fully discharged. This is in contrast, for example, to lithium ion batteries, which are less stable and will be permanently damaged if discharged below a minimum voltage.
The battery performs very well under rough conditions, perfect for use in the portable tools.
Ni–Cd batteries typically last longer, in terms of number of charge/discharge cycles, than other rechargeable batteries such as lead/acid batteries.
Compared to lead–acid batteries, Ni–Cd batteries have a much higher energy density. A Ni–Cd battery is smaller and lighter than a comparable lead–acid battery, but not a comparable NiMH or Li-ion battery. In cases where size and weight are important considerations (for example, aircraft), Ni–Cd batteries are preferred over the cheaper lead–acid batteries.
In consumer applications, Ni–Cd batteries compete directly with alkaline batteries. A Ni–Cd cell has a lower capacity than that of an equivalent alkaline cell, and costs more. However, since the alkaline battery's chemical reaction is not reversible, a reusable Ni–Cd battery has a significantly longer total lifetime. There have been attempts to create rechargeable alkaline batteries, or specialized battery chargers for charging single-use alkaline batteries, but none that has seen wide usage.
The terminal voltage of a Ni–Cd battery declines more slowly as it is discharged, compared with carbon–zinc batteries. Since an alkaline battery's voltage drops significantly as the charge drops, most consumer applications are well equipped to deal with the slightly lower Ni–Cd cell voltage with no noticeable loss of performance.
The capacity of a Ni–Cd battery is not significantly affected by very high discharge currents. Even with discharge rates as high as 50C, a Ni–Cd battery will provide very nearly its rated capacity. By contrast, a lead acid battery will only provide approximately half its rated capacity when discharged at a relatively modest 1.5C.
The maximum continuous current drain of NiCd battery is commonly around 15C. Compared to NiMH battery where usable maximum continuous current drain is not more than 5C.
Nickel–metal hydride (NiMH) batteries are the newest, and most similar, competitor to Ni–Cd batteries. Compared to Ni–Cd batteries, NiMH batteries have a higher capacity and are less toxic, and are now more cost effective. However, a Ni–Cd battery has a lower self-discharge rate (for example, 20% per month for a Ni–Cd battery, versus 30% per month for a traditional NiMH under identical conditions), although low self-discharge ("LSD") NiMH batteries are now available, which have substantially lower self-discharge than either Ni–Cd or traditional NiMH batteries. This results in a preference for Ni–Cd over non-LSD NiMH batteries in applications where the current draw on the battery is lower than the battery's own self-discharge rate (for example, television remote controls). In both types of cell, the self-discharge rate is highest for a full charge state and drops off somewhat for lower charge states. Finally, a similarly sized Ni–Cd battery has a slightly lower internal resistance, and thus can achieve a higher maximum discharge rate (which can be important for applications such as power tools).

text: The primary trade-off with Ni–Cd batteries is their higher cost and the use of cadmium. This heavy metal is an environmental hazard, and is highly toxic to all higher forms of life. They are also more costly than lead–acid batteries because nickel and cadmium cost more. One of the biggest disadvantages is that the battery exhibits a very marked negative temperature coefficient. This means that as the cell temperature rises, the internal resistance falls. This can pose considerable charging problems, particularly with the relatively simple charging systems employed for lead–acid type batteries. Whilst lead–acid batteries can be charged by simply connecting a dynamo to them, with a simple electromagnetic cut-out system for when the dynamo is stationary or an over-current occurs, the Ni–Cd battery under a similar charging scheme would exhibit thermal runaway, where the charging current would continue to rise until the over-current cut-out operated or the battery destroyed itself. This is the principal factor that prevents its use as engine-starting batteries. Today with alternator-based charging systems with solid-state regulators, the construction of a suitable charging system would be relatively simple, but the car manufacturers are reluctant to abandon tried-and-tested technology.[citation needed]

text: Memory effect[edit]

text: Ni–Cd batteries may suffer from a "memory effect" if they are discharged and recharged to the same state of charge hundreds of times. The apparent symptom is that the battery "remembers" the point in its charge cycle where recharging began and during subsequent use suffers a sudden drop in voltage at that point, as if the battery had been discharged. The capacity of the battery is not actually reduced substantially. Some electronics designed to be powered by Ni–Cd batteries are able to withstand this reduced voltage long enough for the voltage to return to normal. However, if the device is unable to operate through this period of decreased voltage, it will be unable to get enough energy out of the battery, and for all practical purposes, the battery appears "dead" earlier than normal.

text: There is evidence that the memory effect story originated from orbiting satellites, where they were typically charging for twelve hours out of 24 for several years.[10] After this time, it was found that the capacities of the batteries had declined significantly, but were still fit for use. It is unlikely that this precise repetitive charging (for example, 1,000 charges/discharges with less than 2% variability) could ever be reproduced by individuals using electrical goods. The original paper describing the memory effect was written by GE scientists at their Battery Business Department in Gainesville, Florida, and later retracted by them, but the damage was done. It is unlikely to be a real phenomenon, but has taken on a life of its own as an urban myth.[citation needed]

text: The battery survives thousands of charges/discharges cycles. Also it is possible to lower the memory effect by discharging the battery completely about once a month.[citation needed] This way apparently the battery does not "remember" the point in its charge cycle.

text: An effect with similar symptoms to the memory effect is the so-called voltage depression or lazy battery effect. This results from repeated overcharging; the symptom is that the battery appears to be fully charged but discharges quickly after only a brief period of operation. In rare cases, much of the lost capacity can be recovered by a few deep-discharge cycles, a function often provided by automatic battery chargers. However, this process may reduce the shelf life of the battery.[citation needed] If treated well, a Ni–Cd battery can last for 1,000 cycles or more before its capacity drops below half its original capacity. Many home chargers claim to be "smart chargers" which will shut down and not damage the battery, but this seems to be a common problem.[citation needed]

text: Environmental impact[edit]

text: Ni–Cd batteries contain between 6% (for industrial batteries) and 18% (for commercial batteries) cadmium, which is a toxic heavy metal and therefore requires special care during battery disposal. In the United States, part of the battery price is a fee for its proper disposal at the end of its service lifetime. Under the so-called "batteries directive" (2006/66/EC), the sale of consumer Ni–Cd batteries has now been banned within the European Union except for medical use; alarm systems; emergency lighting; and portable power tools. This last category has been banned effective 2016.[11] Under the same EU directive, used industrial Ni–Cd batteries must be collected by their producers in order to be recycled in dedicated facilities.

text: Cadmium, being a heavy metal, can cause substantial pollution when discarded in a landfill or incinerated. Because of this, many countries now operate recycling programs to capture and reprocess old batteries.


document_title: Birth control in the United States

question_text: when was birth control made legal in the us

text: Birth control in the United States

text: History[edit]

text: Birth control before 20th century[edit]

text: The practice of birth control was common throughout the U.S. prior to 1914, when the movement to legalize contraception began. Longstanding techniques included the rhythm method, withdrawal, diaphragms, contraceptive sponges, condoms, prolonged breastfeeding, and spermicides.[1] Use of contraceptives increased throughout the nineteenth century, contributing to a 50 percent drop in the fertility rate in the United States between 1800 and 1900, particularly in urban regions.[2] The only known survey conducted during the nineteenth century of American women's contraceptive habits was performed by Clelia Mosher from 1892 to 1912.[3] The survey was based on a small sample of upper-class women, and shows that most of the women used contraception (primarily douching, but also withdrawal, rhythm, condoms and pessaries) and that they viewed sex as a pleasurable act that could be undertaken without the goal of procreation.[4]

text: Although contraceptives were relatively common in middle-class and upper-class society, the topic was rarely discussed in public.[5] The first book published in the United States which ventured to discuss contraception was Moral Physiology; or, A Brief and Plain Treatise on the Population Question, published by Robert Dale Owen in 1831.[6] The book suggested that family planning was a laudable effort, and that sexual gratification – without the goal of reproduction – was not immoral.[7] Owen recommended withdrawal, but he also discussed sponges and condoms.[8] That book was followed by Fruits of Philosophy: The Private Companion of Young Married People, written in 1832 by Charles Knowlton, which recommended douching.[9] Knowlton was prosecuted in Massachusetts on obscenity charges, and served three months in prison.[10]

text: Birth control practices were generally adopted earlier in Europe than in the United States. Knowlton's book was reprinted in 1877 in England by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant,[11] with the goal of challenging Britain's obscenity laws.[12] They were arrested (and later acquitted) but the publicity of their trial contributed to the formation, in 1877, of the Malthusian League – the world's first birth control advocacy group – which sought to limit population growth to avoid Thomas Malthus' dire predictions of exponential population growth leading to worldwide poverty and famine.[13] By 1930, similar societies had been established in nearly all European countries, and birth control began to find acceptance in most Western European countries, except Catholic Ireland, Spain, and France.[14] As the birth control societies spread across Europe, so did birth control clinics. The first birth control clinic in the world was established in the Netherlands in 1882, run by the Netherlands' first female physician, Aletta Jacobs.[15] The first birth control clinic in England was established in 1921 by Marie Stopes, in London.[16]

text: Anti-contraception laws[edit]

text: Contraception was not restricted by law in the United States throughout most of the 19th century, but in the 1870s a social purity movement grew in strength, aimed at outlawing vice in general, and prostitution and obscenity in particular.[17] Composed primarily of Protestant moral reformers and middle-class women, the Victorian-era campaign also attacked contraception, which was viewed as an immoral practice that promoted prostitution and venereal disease.[18] Anthony Comstock, a grocery clerk [19] and leader in the purity movement, successfully lobbied for the passage of the 1873 Comstock Act, a federal law prohibiting mailing of "any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion" as well as any form of contraceptive information.[20] After passage of this first Comstock Act, he was appointed to the position of postal inspector Many states also passed similar state laws (collectively known as the Comstock laws), sometimes extending the federal law by additionally restricting contraceptives, including information about them and their distribution. Comstock was proud of the fact that he was personally responsible for thousands of arrests and the destruction of hundreds of tons of books and pamphlets.[21]

text: Comstock and his allies also took aim at the libertarians and utopians who comprised the free love movement – an initiative to promote sexual freedom, equality for women, and abolition of marriage.[22] The free love proponents were the only group to actively oppose the Comstock laws in the 19th century, setting the stage for the birth control movement.[23]

text: The efforts of the free love movement were not successful and, at the beginning of the 20th century, federal and state governments began to enforce the Comstock laws more rigorously.[23] In response, contraception went underground, but it was not extinguished. The number of publications on the topic dwindled, and advertisements, if they were found at all, used euphemisms such as "marital aids" or "hygienic devices". Drug stores continued to sell condoms as "rubber goods" and cervical caps as "womb supporters".[24]

text: Birth control movement[edit]

text: From World War II to 1960[edit]

text: After World War II, the birth control movement had accomplished the goal of making birth control legal, and advocacy for reproductive rights began to focus on abortion, public funding, and insurance coverage.[26]

text: Birth control advocacy organizations around the world also began to collaborate. In 1946, Sanger helped found the International Committee on Planned Parenthood, which evolved into the International Planned Parenthood Federation and soon became the world's largest non-governmental international family planning organization.[27] In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III founded the influential Population Council.[28] Fear of global overpopulation became a major issue in the 1960s, generating concerns about pollution, food shortages, and quality of life, leading to well-funded birth control campaigns around the world.[29] The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women addressed birth control and influenced human rights declarations which asserted women's rights to control their own bodies.[30]

text: The sexual revolution and 'the pill'[edit]

text: In the early 1950s, philanthropist Katharine McCormick had provided funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the birth control pill, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960.[31] The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture. It contributed to a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women.[32] New forms of intrauterine devices were introduced in the 1960s, increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptives.[33]

text: In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that it was unconstitutional for the government to prohibit married couples from using birth control.

text: Also in 1965, 26 states prohibited birth control for unmarried women.[34] In 1967 Boston University students petitioned Bill Baird to challenge Massachusetts's stringent "Crimes Against Chastity, Decency, Morality and Good Order" law.[35] On April 6, 1967 he gave a speech to 1,500 students and others at Boston University on abortion and birth control.[36] He gave a female student one condom and a package of contraceptive foam.[36] Baird was arrested and convicted as a felon, facing up to ten years in jail.[37] He spent three months in Boston's Charles Street Jail.[38] During his challenge to the Massachusetts law, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts stated that "there is nothing to be gained by court action of this kind. The only way to remove the limitations remaining in the law is through the legislative process."[39] Despite this opposition, Baird fought for five years until Eisenstadt v. Baird legalized birth control for all Americans on March 22, 1972. Eisenstadt v. Baird, a landmark right to privacy decision, became the foundation for such cases as Roe v. Wade and the 2003 gay rights victory Lawrence v. Texas.

text: In 1970, Congress removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws;[40] and in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.[41]

text: Also in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted as part of the war on poverty, to make family planning and preventive health services available to low-income and the uninsured.[42] Without publicly funded family planning services, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.[43] According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, publicly funded family planning saves nearly $4 in Medicaid expenses for every $1 spent on services.[44]

text: In 1982, European drug manufacturers developed mifepristone, which was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally prescribed with a prostoglandin to induce abortion in pregnancies up to the fourth month of gestation.[45] To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion organizations, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories, a company formed by pro-choice advocates, with the sole purpose of distributing mifepristone in the U.S, and thus immune to the effects of boycotts.[46]

text: In 1997, the FDA approved a prescription emergency contraception pill (known as the morning-after pill), which became available over the counter in 2006.[47] In 2010, ulipristal acetate, an emergency contraceptive which is more effective after a longer delay was approved for use up to five days after unprotected sexual intercourse.[48] Fifty to sixty percent of abortion patients became pregnant in circumstances in which emergency contraceptives could have been used.[49] These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, became another reproductive rights controversy.[50] Opponents of emergency contraception consider it a form of abortion, because it may interfere with the ability of a fertilized embryo to implant in the uterus; while proponents contend that it is not abortion, because the absence of implantation means that pregnancy never commenced.[51]

text: In 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[52]

text: President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on 23 March 2010. As of 1 August 2011, female contraception was added to a list of preventive services covered by the ACA that would be provided without patient co-payment. The federal mandate applied to all new health insurance plans in all states from 1 August 2012.[53][54] Grandfathered plans did not have to comply unless they changed substantially.[55] To be grandfathered, a group plan must have existed or an individual plan must have been sold before President Obama signed the law; otherwise they were required to comply with the new law.[56] The Guttmacher Institute noted that even before the federal mandate was implemented, twenty-eight states had their own mandates that required health insurance to cover the prescription contraceptives, but the federal mandate innovated by forbidding insurance companies from charging part of the cost to the patient.[57]

text: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[58][59] by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[60] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by a 5–4 vote.[61] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[62]

text: Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate. Churches were already exempt.[63] On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case "to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits" for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs".[64] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues".[65] The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases."[66] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case.[67]

text: In 2017, the Trump administration issued a ruling letting insurers and employers refuse to provide birth control if doing so went against their religious beliefs or moral convictions.[68] However, later that same year federal judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction temporarily stopping the enforcement of the Trump administration ruling.[69]

text: Current practices[edit]

text: There are many types of contraceptive methods available. Hormonal methods which contain the hormones estrogen and progestin include oral contraceptive pills (there is also a progestin only pill), transdermal patch (OrthoEvra), and intravaginal ring (NuvaRing). Progestin only methods include an injectable form (Depo-Provera), a subdermal implant (Nexplanon), and the intrauterine device (Mirena). Non-hormonal contraceptive methods include the copper intrauterine device (ParaGard), male and female condoms, male and female sterilization, cervical diaphragms and sponges, spermicides, withdrawal, and fertility awareness.

text:
In 2006-2008, the most popular contraceptive methods among those at risk of unintended pregnancy were oral contraceptive pills (25%), female sterilization (24.2%), male condoms (14.5%) and male sterilization (8.8%).[70] Intrauterine device (4.9%), Withdrawal (4.6%).[70]
Depo-Provera is used by 2.9%, primarily younger women (7.5% of those 15-19 and about 4.5% of those 20-30).[70]

text: A 2013 Lancet systematic literature review found that among reproductive aged women in a marriage or union, 66% worldwide and 77% in the United States use contraception. Despite this unintended pregnancy remains high; just under half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended. 10.6% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy did not use a contraceptive method, including 18.7% of teens and 14.3% of those 20-24.[70] Women of reproductive age (15 to 44) who are not regarded as at risk for unintended pregnancy include those who are sterile, were sterilized for non-contraceptive reasons, were pregnant or trying to become pregnant, or had not had sex in the 3 months prior to the survey.[70] When examining reasons why women do not use birth control, s 2007 Pregnancy Risk Monitoring Assessment System (PRAMS) survey of over 8000 women with a recent unintended pregnancy found that 33% felt they could not get pregnant at the time of conception, 30% did not mind if they got pregnant, 22% stated their partner did not want to use contraception, 16% cited side effects, 10% felt they or their partner were sterile, 10% reported access problems, and 18% selected "other".

text: Cost savings[edit]

text: Contraceptive use saves almost US $19 billion in direct medical costs each year.[71]

text: Access to Most Effective Birth Control Could Save $12 Billion a Year: Study. ... The cost savings from that drop? About $12 billion in public health care costs each year, according to the new analysis.

text: Additional benefits[edit]

text: Contraception has many benefits beyond preventing pregnancy. Combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives can successfully treat dysmenorrhea (painful periods), provide symptom relief from endometriosis, reduce heavy menstrual bleeding and improve anemia related to menstrual blood loss, reduce symptoms of premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder, reduce ovarian and colon cancer risk, reduce moderate acne, prevent of menstrual migraines, and reduce hirsutism (abnormal hair growth). The progestin containing intrauterine device can reduce heavy menstrual bleeding and protect against pre-cancerous changes or cancer in the uterus. Condoms (male or female) are the only contraceptive method which protects against acquisition of sexually transmitted infections.[44]

text: According to the New York Times this October 6 of 2017 "The Trump administration on Friday moved to expand the rights of employers to deny women insurance coverage for contraception and issued sweeping guidance on religious freedom that critics said could also erode civil rights protec[1]tions for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people".

text: According to the Department of Health and Human Services "two rules rolling back a federal requirement that employers must include birth control coverage in their health insurance plans. The rules offer an exemption to any employer that objects to covering contraception services on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions".

text: Government and policy[edit]

text: Domestic[edit]

text:
Funding
Title X
Medicaid
Take Charge
Contraceptive mandates
Goals
Healthy People program "responsible sexual behavior" indicator

text: International[edit]

text: United States Agency for International Development

text: Legislation[edit]

text: 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

text: In two major legal cases that were planned in 2014, the attorneys made an issue of whether a for-profit corporation can be required to provide coverage for contraceptive services to its employees.[72] As of 1 January 2016, women in Oregon will be eligible to purchase a one-year supply of oral contraceptive; this is the first such legislation in the United States and has attracted the attention of California, Washington state and New York.[73]

text: Possible new rule under Trump Administration[edit]

text: In 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services changed the previous federal requirement for employers to cover birth control in the health insurance plans for their employees. Under this new rule, hundreds of thousands of women would lose their ability to have their birth control costs covered for them.[74] The new rule would let insurers and employers refuse to provide birth control if doing so went against their "religious beliefs" or "moral convictions".[68][69] However, later in 2017 federal judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction temporarily stopping the enforcement of this new rule.[68][69]

text: Notable organizations[edit]

text:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
EngenderHealth
Guttmacher Institute
American Social Health Association
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States

text: Influence of religion[edit]

text: In 2014, the Supreme Court decided that for-profit corporations may offer insurance plans that do not cover contraception, by the rationale that the owners may hold that certain contraceptives violate their religious beliefs. This was a setback for the federal government's attempt to create a uniform set of health care insurance benefits.[75][76]