Replies

The notion that people don't judge risk well is well founded. However, the rest of this article is crap.

We have a basis for calculating the odds of getting killed in a car accident, crossing the street, etc. Every insurance company does the actuarial calculations involved to set their rates.

We have no way of predicting how many deaths could result from terrorism. The article doesn't mention biological weapons, dirty nuclear bombs, or even nuclear bombs -- all of which could be acquired by terrorists if (or even if) we remain vigilant, and press the war on terror.

The risks from terrorism could be several times greater than the risks of death from all of the other reasons cited -- we simply have no way of knowing. Where's the "precautionary principle" when we need it?

"all of which could be acquired by terrorists if (or even if) we remain vigilant ..."

Should have said: "all of which could be actuired by terrorists of we don't remain vigilant (or maybe even if we do) ..."