Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
My argument isn’t about intent, it’s about probability. Another pandemic will happen. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in another 1,000 years. But regardless, it will happen.
Terrorists using chemical or biological means for an attack could happen, but the chances are far more remote for a number of reasons. Firstly, working with dangerous chemicals and biological agents is much more expensive than developing and/or obtaining explosive (even nuclear) material. Second, working with chemicals and biological agents requires more money (i.e., labs, safety equipment so you don’t kill yourself, etc.). Third, biological agents that are able to kill mass numbers of people quickly would be highly infectious and would be very likely to spread across the planet in our modern, mobile world.
Making/using things that are just as hazardous to the terrorists kind of negates what they are attempting to achieve.
JimR, yes terrorist will strike again and the same with car wrecks and pandemics. What is illogical is to put more fear into lower risks events than higher risks events. That is the whole point of the chart. There are some people that believe they will die in a terrorist attack when it is more likely they will die in a car accident or get murdered.
This administration has done a good job at inflating the risk of terrorism. Granted someone working in Washington D.C. might have a slightly more chance being killed by a terrorist than someone working in Montana. But both people have a greater chance of being killed in a car accident.
So which should should have a higher priority on your worry list, terrorism or car accidents?
nate and bac, you clearly do not understand risk. First there is no basis in fact about you claims for biological warfare. Secondly, terrorists training to fly commercial jets in the USA in plain view, then hijacking and flying 2 planes into the world trade center was thought to be impossible. Apparently you still think an act like that is still impossible. The odds that that type of attack could happen again went sky high after that event. Imagine what they could do if they tried to be be more covert about the next attack. Apparently you prefer not to think about it. You calculate you odds for a car accident by millions of statistics, and yet you calculate the odd for another terrorist attack solely on 1 statistic, one measly event.
You have no clue as to what numbers the death toll from (Taliban) terrorist attacks in North America will be over 5 years and beyond because there has only been one in less than 5 years, the first one. So to assess risk we have to use something else like follow what their capability is elsewhere. looking at those statistics (London especially) it is obvious that the ability and intent is still there.
Fear has nothing to do with it. Common sense does. If it were possible for thousand or millions of people to die in one car crash, would you do your best to try and prevent that crash or would you be as offhand as you are now and exclaim that more people die from smoking?
What kind of dumb logic is that?
We need to focus on medical mistakes and drunk-driving, the rest is just population control
The chart omits things, fair enough but the important thing that it shows is that we are doing a better job of killing ourselves through ignorance and stupidity then any external source such as “terrorism”.
JimR — you are the only one thinking the event of 9/11 was thought to be impossible. The Trade Towers were attack twice within eight years. If I remember correctly, it was the same group that was behind both attacks.
An event occurring once does not give it high probability. It makes the event a rare one. A event that hasn’t happened at all, does not make it an impossible event. It is just an event that hasn’t happened.
Before the 9/11 planning by bin Laden, most terrorist attacks involving aircraft were the ransom type. So I suppose terrorist thought using aircraft as weapons was impossible too.
Aircraft have crashed into buildings before with the majority being of accident. The Empire State Building had such an event. So planes crashing into buildings isn’t a new idea. Doing it on purpose puts a twist to the event.
Oklahoma Bombing was a local terrorist attack. So terrorist attacks on US soil isn’t new either. Having foreign people performing terrorist attacks on US soil just makes it slightly different.
Attacks on US soil is a rare event not an impossible one. There will be many more attacks. Some more devastating than 9/11.
You can not prevent terrorist attacks 100 percent of the time. So concentrating almost all of your effort on doing so may be unwise. Giving some attention to recovery efforts might help shorten the devastation and clean up period. So far, the US has done a poor job in the recovery stage of attacks and disasters.
By the way, around 40000 people do die in auto accidents each year. Where is your out rage for those people? Since 9/11 almost 240000 people have died, are you willing to give up driving in the pursuit of safer roads? Are you willing to give up your freedoms just because under 10000 people have died within the past decade by terrorist?
#34 & 35, pedro & JimR:
Did I say we shouldn’t be concerned at all about terrorism? No, I didn’t. I’m advocating that we’re far more worried about it than we realistically should be. I’m also arguing that our current administration doesn’t give a rat’s ass about protecting us from terrorism given their actions in Iraq leading to increased terrorism and their desire to profit off terror and manipulate the public through fear.
And Jim; do not preach to me about not understanding risk. Given my major of electrical engineering, I certainly know plenty about (and have experience dealing with) Probabilistic Risk Assessment as it relates to the power industry.
I should also mention that my current job has me partially involved with PRA and disaster mitigation for information technology systems for a major university.
Stop your fear mongering. It won’t work here. I have a very solid handle on what the risks (or lack thereof) from terrorism are. I also know plenty about the risks from fire, floods, tornadoes, etc.
That explains why these fast food companies are trying hard to make international businesses a priority.
“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics”
This is stupid. It makes it sound like there are evil hamburgers lurking behind the bushes waiting to pounce out and kill you. The problem, and why this is stupid, is that EVERYONE DIES, and SOMETHING causes every death.
At some point you will die, either from trauma, or from organ failure. The longer you live, the more likely your death will be the result of a failing organ.
Organs can fail for millions of reason. Some part of you will eventually break, either from wear and tear, or from being the victim of a disease. The failure of a critical organ, like the heart, is usually fatal.
And yes.. abusing your body parts with fat and cigarettes will cause a failure sooner than later. Not taking care of your body parts will cause them to fail sooner than later. No duh.
If somehow heart disease were to magically disappear tomorrow, then something else would replace it as the leading cause of death of Americans.
If somehow heart disease were to magically disappear tomorrow, how much would the average life span increase? Would it it go up much? Decades? Years? Months? I suspect not that much.
My point is that throwing out stats like “XXX is the leading cause of death, therefore we needs lots of money to fight it” is misleading and possibly a waste of money. There is real diminishing return on investment for fighting the deterioration of the body’s organs.
After the human body is through being able to breed, and being able to contribute to the raising of the next generation, biologically we are a drain on resources. No wonder nature finds ways to kill us off.
Also, Jim:
Comparing an event where you are a willing participant (i.e., auto accidents, plane accidents, etc.) is not an apples to apples comparison. People willingly drive/fly/many other things; they should understand the risks involved. Besides, per number of miles driven, the fatality/injury rate is decreasing.
Innocent people (generally, I suppose there are crazy types who would, excluding the terrorists themselves) do not volunteer to be killed by terrorists.
Who is fear mongering here? I see your, your comparison of the risk, ie. comparing fortuitous events like a pandemic or car accidents. or floods, to irrational premeditative attacks, as meaningless. Like apples and oranges.
And just because I am all for protecting ourselves against terrorists doesn’t mean I don’t agree with you about your current administration.
Nate, I guess my reproach to you on risk knowledge was in response to your opinion of my logic. Your remark wasn’t called for and neither was mine.
I try to keep disagreements civil and I slipped up, so sorry for my part.
You as well Bac.
Ok, that was weird. I just saw your last post. I think we are misunderstanding each other somewhat. đ
bac #39, you go on and on about how flying a plane into a building is not unusual. I agree, but that’s not what I said was thought impossible.
There is a difference between potential deaths and actual deaths. Should we be more concerned about what MIGHT happen or what actually DOES happen.
Sure terrorists could kill 3 million people tomorrow but is there any way we could effectively prevent that from happening?
I would rather spend more money dealing with we know is going to happen than what might possibly happen.
#6 – Smoker also have a lower average I.Q. than non-smokers, so maybe they just werenât meant to keep living anyway.
Bullshit!
#9 – In actuality one is much more likely to be struck by lightening than to be killed by a terrorist.
Which is why we should not be throwing our freedoms and civil liberties aside.
OR… Maybe we should be building a giant lightening shield to protect us from the obvious threat of killer lightening.
#25 – UD is against:
Religion (specifically Christianity) – Check
War – Check
Republicans – Check
Catching pedophiles – Check
Okay, we get it already. I guess it was JCD who is against catching pedophiles. My bad.
That’s the sort of dumb-ass conclusion one expects from the not so critically thinking right wing. Do you guys get trained to just regurgitate your talking points without listening to your betters, or is it a birth defect or something?
#48: If your reading comprehension level equals that of a kindergartener, yes, I suppose it would look like I’m agreeing with you…
Actually loss of life is the number one killer.
Worldwide, historically, malaria is the #1 killer. At least according to Nat’s Geographic, which claim half of all humans who’ve ever lived died of malaria.
Soon, global warming will be the #1 killer and it will be time for a party because we won’t need charcoal to grill.
#51 – #53 – Once the dispute has degraded to unwitty barbs about reading comprehension, the debate is over…
I’d like this to be known as Lippincott’s Law.
#55 – References to Different Strokes will also end any debate.
This is known as Dana Plato’s Law
đ
#54, 56:
Har, har!
#34, pedro,
Bad logic. You simply should not lose any liberty because of a bigger perceived or real âdeath risk factorâ
Wrong. Maybe on an individual basis for someone living 100 miles from the nearest neighbor that would work. For those that live in a society it won’t.
I really DON’T want my next door neighbor to experiment with high explosives. I DON’T want the guy down the road from me randomly shooting high powered automatic rifles. I DON’T want the plant a mile away dumping toxic waste into the aquifer. Geeze, no wonder they are all illegal.
At the same time, government has also banned or restricted our use of certain drugs, many chemicals, radioactive material, and other dangerous materials. We are required to wear seat belts for our own protection, we can’t smoke where it might injure another person, and we must send our children to school.
While you might cry about our loss of civil liberties for what I listed, all these government imposed regulations are for the protection and betterment of society. The risks can be demonstrated. Protection against terrorism on the other hand is really a lot of hot air and promotion of irrational fear. Just reading JimR and your comments show how two normaly rational people respond to this fear.
When banning trans fats becomes a personal issue and protecting against the most trivial threat is a grave national concern shows that the time to reorganize our priorities is now.
#9
> In actuality one is much
> more likely to be struck by
> lightening than to be killed by a terrorist.
Ah, lies, damn lies and statistics. What are the odds of dying from a terroist attack…in Iraq? What are the odds that you die from smoking while surrounded by non-smoking Chinese people hundreds of miles from civilization or cigarettes? What are the odds across the entire planet that you die of smoking?
The problem here is that the statistics are naturally skewed for threats that a broad spectrum of people in a peaceful society *might* encounter but that can vary widely depending on what you do on a regular basis.
#32
> Firstly, working with dangerous
> chemicals and biological agents
> is much more expensive than developing and
> /or obtaining explosive (even nuclear) material.
Not true. In fact, not even remotely close to true. You can develop chemical weapons with very little expense. Mustard gas is incredibly inexpensive to manufacture compared to nuclear weapons. It is the delivery system that is expensive. Developing nuclear weapons is extraordinarily expensive and far easier to detect that chemical or biological weapons.
#52
> Actually loss of life is the number one killer.
You see, that’s because death is hereditary. ;->
i hope a meteor impacts soon – that that stupid graph will be invalidated
#61 pedro,
If that is what you meant than you should have said so. You didn’t. You wrote,:
Bad logic. You simply should not lose any liberty because of a bigger perceived or real âdeath risk factorâ (my emphasis)
There are many people who would willingly fire heavy automatic weapons in their back yards if allowed. They would also play with explosives and dump toxic chemicals. There are those who would play music all night with high output speakers or allow their vicious dogs to roam loose. Common sense or not, you are willing to deprive them of that liberty and justify it?
Any time there is a risk or danger society has a vested interest in controlling that activity. It isn’t a question of black and white. Shades of gray dominate.
We know tobacco is a major cause of illnesses so it is controlled. There is a tobacco lobby that so far has prevented the total banning of tobacco though. In a few years though I fully expect to see tobacco totally banned.
The same with trans fats. We know they cause harm and slowly they are being phased out, mostly voluntarily. Eventually they will be banned also.
Now, whereâs the rationale about doing without warrants for wire tapping?
There isn’t any on my side. Judicial warrants are a time honored condition with which society protects itself from crime and over zealous police. It is the wire taps done without warrants that are a problem.
Next thing you know, weâll have the burger police.
Uummm, pedro, I know you don’t live in the US so you might not understand some things. There are a couple of agencies that might already qualify as your Burger Police The Food and Drug Administration does check and verify that food sold in the US are not harmful. Although it can be difficult fighting the political hacks in charge, the FDA is making strides against the food industry and is gaining some ground.
When I was referring to losing liberties, it was a direct hit to what itâs happening or rather being done in the name of protection against terrorism, not common sense.
An old saying is The problem with Common Sense is it isn’t too common. It is also one of those squishy, fuzzy things that defy an accepted definition. Wouldn’t âcommon senseâ suggest tobacco should be totally banned?