5 ms·

The brain is not designed to understand statistics. Nuclear accidents are theatrical and fun, and therefore get a lot of play on the media when they happen. Loo

The brain is not designed to understand statistics. Nuclear accidents are theatrical and fun, and therefore get a lot of play on the media when they happen. Look no further than the media circus surrounding Fukushima to confirm. Everybody is scared to death of Sharks, yet sharks killed only 1 person in the US last year. Cows killed 20, 75% of which were deliberate attacks, but almost no one is afraid of a Cow. Meanwhile 17,775 people died in traffic accidents, yet people jump in cars like it's routine. You're literally 17,000% more likely to die in your own car than you are by a shark, but again, brains don't understand that.

uoaei 9y ago
People and their egos crave control. With something like driving, you feel at least somewhat in control of your own destiny. Coming face to face with a shark does not afford the same sense, same with an unstoppable chain reaction occurring deep in a nuclear reactor and the ensuing fallout.
- mamon 9y ago
  Plus, our reptile brains has deeply ingrained fear of wild animals, cars are too new invention to be able to affect our instinct the same way sharks do.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  You're correct, but there's only been a few failures like that in the entire history of Nuclear energy, one of which was a ridiculous test far beyond the scope of logic and reason (Chernobyl), one of which was a completely safe and designed failure that killed no one and did nearly nothing in terms of actual damage (3 Mile Island) and one that was the result of a plant being hit in the exact wrong spot by a natural event that it had not been designed to withstand in the first place, and despite that, still failed in a largely predictable and contained way. And not to mention, the much wider used coal plants and natural gas plants kill way more people in a lot less theatrical ways, largely through disease of the lungs and skin. Again though watching someone die of black lung isn't nearly as interesting as watching someone die of radiation sickness, so we don't hear about it.
tathougies 9y ago
1,700,000% more likely actually :)
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  I can't math good apparently, heh.
sdy 9y ago
You may be on to something. Have we checked how far North Korea is able to launch sharks and cars? /s I think nuclear can't be compared to cars and sharks.
EADGBE 9y ago
I really think you're just spitting out numbers. Where are you getting these numbers? Particularly the cow one (deliberate killings only). Generally intrigued. > yet people jump in cars like it's routine. It is routine. Time spent driving is much, much, much higher than time spent swimming near sharks. So... My brain understands that if I refused to go skydiving, then I can not die from a skydiving accident. Which is about as likely as going for a swim instead of a drive to get to work.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  Shark attacks in the US. Having a hard time finding anything recent, even to average out to one death every other year. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0613_050613_sharkfacts.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0613_050613_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shark_attacks_in_the_United_States#2010s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shar... Also, closer to 30k+ traffic fatalities (last reported year is 2015, so far it seems) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i... Still can't find cow numbers.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  ABC has an article about the killer cows (which cites data from the CDC, though I've yet to find the data): http://abcnews.go.com/Health/shark-versus-cow-deadlier/story?id=24931705 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/shark-versus-cow-deadlier/story... British cows are apparently similarly deadly: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cows-officially-the-most-deadly-large-animals-in-britain-a6727266.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cows-official...
  - EADGBE 9y ago
    Thanks for pointing this out. Whoa, now I'm very concerned about snails.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Schistosomiasis is largely a disease of poverty. When drugs and treated water are available, it is easily controlled.
pierrebai 9y ago
I've encountered thousands of cars today. I've yet to encounter a single shark in decades. I'd expect very high danger in the presence of a shark. I've not yet been injured by all the cars I've seen in my life. People understanding of stats is fine. They understand that the pre-requisite to being attacked by a shark is super-extremely low. That does not make sharks safe. I'll put my hand on the hood of a car any day instead of on a shark. Your reasoning about Fukushima shows the same kind of problem: it's because of all the urgent actions after the accident that there's not been more consequences. Your argument would show that a house on fire is not dangerous because after people were evacuated, no one died of burning. It's the evacualtion of of a fire that saves life, it's not the lack of danger of a blazing inferno.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Oh I love that analogy, I thought I would figure out where it came from. Most people reference the times story [1] which talks about 20 cows a year, however that story references a CDC study [2] which talks about 21 cows over 5 years. Which makes it actually about 4 people a year (average) being killed by cows. Which is still more than death by Sharks at about 1 every other year on average according to [3]. [1] "The image of cows as placid, gentle creatures is a city slicker’s fantasy, judging from an article published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reports that about 20 people a year are killed by cows in the United States." -- https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dangerous-cows/ https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dangerous-co... [2] "A total of 21 deaths met the case definition for 2003--2008 (Table 1). Four fatalities occurred in 2003, two in 2004, six in 2005, and three each year during 2006--2008." -- https://www.cdc.gov/mmWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm [3] https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/fish/isaf/contributing-factors/species-implicated-attacks https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/fish/isaf/contributing-fac...
Qwertious 9y ago
On the other hand, IIRC nuclear has a reverse bell curve, where it's most dangerous at the very start and end of its' lifetime. And if you take nuclear plants that are not quite at the end of their lifetime, then average the deaths over their last 40 years, and compare that average to solar (the majority of which are 3 years old or less - at the start of their lifetime), then you can make nuclear appear an order of magnitude safer than they actually are. People don't handle statistics well, but statistics are also easily manipulated and therefore potentially completely unreliable (Mark Twain quote here). It's not quite as simple as "people need to listen to the statistics". Also, people go to the beach way less often than they go near roads. If most people only go to the beach 1 day a year and go on roads every day, then it's more like "you're 50x more likely to die by car than by shark". That's a far cry from 17000x. That said, I've always thought that stat could be abused to push car safety - "Imagine you're attacked by a shark - now, cars are like that but TIMES FIFTY! Drive safe, look both ways, etc".

uoaei 9y ago

People and their egos crave control. With something like driving, you feel at least somewhat in control of your own destiny. Coming face to face with a shark does not afford the same sense, same with an unstoppable chain reaction occurring deep in a nuclear reactor and the ensuing fallout.

mamon 9y ago
Plus, our reptile brains has deeply ingrained fear of wild animals, cars are too new invention to be able to affect our instinct the same way sharks do.
FussyZeus 9y ago
You're correct, but there's only been a few failures like that in the entire history of Nuclear energy, one of which was a ridiculous test far beyond the scope of logic and reason (Chernobyl), one of which was a completely safe and designed failure that killed no one and did nearly nothing in terms of actual damage (3 Mile Island) and one that was the result of a plant being hit in the exact wrong spot by a natural event that it had not been designed to withstand in the first place, and despite that, still failed in a largely predictable and contained way. And not to mention, the much wider used coal plants and natural gas plants kill way more people in a lot less theatrical ways, largely through disease of the lungs and skin. Again though watching someone die of black lung isn't nearly as interesting as watching someone die of radiation sickness, so we don't hear about it.

tathougies 9y ago

1,700,000% more likely actually :)

FussyZeus 9y ago
I can't math good apparently, heh.

sdy 9y ago

You may be on to something. Have we checked how far North Korea is able to launch sharks and cars? /s I think nuclear can't be compared to cars and sharks.

EADGBE 9y ago

I really think you're just spitting out numbers. Where are you getting these numbers? Particularly the cow one (deliberate killings only). Generally intrigued. > yet people jump in cars like it's routine. It is routine. Time spent driving is much, much, much higher than time spent swimming near sharks. So... My brain understands that if I refused to go skydiving, then I can not die from a skydiving accident. Which is about as likely as going for a swim instead of a drive to get to work.

EADGBE 9y ago
Shark attacks in the US. Having a hard time finding anything recent, even to average out to one death every other year. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0613_050613_sharkfacts.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0613_050613_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shark_attacks_in_the_United_States#2010s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shar... Also, closer to 30k+ traffic fatalities (last reported year is 2015, so far it seems) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i... Still can't find cow numbers.
yellowapple 9y ago
ABC has an article about the killer cows (which cites data from the CDC, though I've yet to find the data): http://abcnews.go.com/Health/shark-versus-cow-deadlier/story?id=24931705 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/shark-versus-cow-deadlier/story... British cows are apparently similarly deadly: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cows-officially-the-most-deadly-large-animals-in-britain-a6727266.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cows-official...
- EADGBE 9y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out. Whoa, now I'm very concerned about snails.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Schistosomiasis is largely a disease of poverty. When drugs and treated water are available, it is easily controlled.

pierrebai 9y ago

I've encountered thousands of cars today. I've yet to encounter a single shark in decades. I'd expect very high danger in the presence of a shark. I've not yet been injured by all the cars I've seen in my life. People understanding of stats is fine. They understand that the pre-requisite to being attacked by a shark is super-extremely low. That does not make sharks safe. I'll put my hand on the hood of a car any day instead of on a shark. Your reasoning about Fukushima shows the same kind of problem: it's because of all the urgent actions after the accident that there's not been more consequences. Your argument would show that a house on fire is not dangerous because after people were evacuated, no one died of burning. It's the evacualtion of of a fire that saves life, it's not the lack of danger of a blazing inferno.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

Oh I love that analogy, I thought I would figure out where it came from. Most people reference the times story [1] which talks about 20 cows a year, however that story references a CDC study [2] which talks about 21 cows over 5 years. Which makes it actually about 4 people a year (average) being killed by cows. Which is still more than death by Sharks at about 1 every other year on average according to [3]. [1] "The image of cows as placid, gentle creatures is a city slicker’s fantasy, judging from an article published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reports that about 20 people a year are killed by cows in the United States." -- https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dangerous-cows/ https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dangerous-co... [2] "A total of 21 deaths met the case definition for 2003--2008 (Table 1). Four fatalities occurred in 2003, two in 2004, six in 2005, and three each year during 2006--2008." -- https://www.cdc.gov/mmWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm [3] https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/fish/isaf/contributing-factors/species-implicated-attacks https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/fish/isaf/contributing-fac...

Qwertious 9y ago

On the other hand, IIRC nuclear has a reverse bell curve, where it's most dangerous at the very start and end of its' lifetime. And if you take nuclear plants that are not quite at the end of their lifetime, then average the deaths over their last 40 years, and compare that average to solar (the majority of which are 3 years old or less - at the start of their lifetime), then you can make nuclear appear an order of magnitude safer than they actually are. People don't handle statistics well, but statistics are also easily manipulated and therefore potentially completely unreliable (Mark Twain quote here). It's not quite as simple as "people need to listen to the statistics". Also, people go to the beach way less often than they go near roads. If most people only go to the beach 1 day a year and go on roads every day, then it's more like "you're 50x more likely to die by car than by shark". That's a far cry from 17000x. That said, I've always thought that stat could be abused to push car safety - "Imagine you're attacked by a shark - now, cars are like that but TIMES FIFTY! Drive safe, look both ways, etc".