5 ms·

Same reason people are much more afraid to fly than drive, despite statistics- We're not scared of dying so much as dying in a catastrophe. Also notice that na

Same reason people are much more afraid to fly than drive, despite statistics- We're not scared of dying so much as dying in a catastrophe. Also notice that natural gas is especially low, even though everyone who's ever had gas heat has imagined their house exploding. I'm pro-nuclear myself, but you could argue that these stats are somewhat misleading, since nuclear deaths would tend to come in bunches and the fears are based on what could happen, not what has happened. You could also conclude that nuclear weapons are extremely safe to have around since they haven't killed anyone for 65 years.

cubix 16y ago
You could also conclude that nuclear weapons are extremely safe to have around since they haven't killed anyone for 65 years. Indeed some people have come to this conclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction
- jhamburger 16y ago
  I don't disagree in principle, I'm just saying that putting up aggregated statistics for something that lends itself to once-in-a-lifetime catastrophic events doesn't tell us a whole lot. I think even the biggest MAD proponents would agree that the risk of nuclear war is greater than zero.
  - pyrhho 16y ago
    I agree with your main point, but I would probably consider being shot with an AK-47 to be a pretty "once-in-a-lifetime catastrophic event".
  - sophacles 16y ago
    Risk of something being greater than 0 is an equally uselss measurement. Otherwise we would have multi-trillion dollar asteroid defense networks, alien invasion detectors in the oort cloud, personal lightning shields, lottery backed retirement funds and so on.
    - jhamburger 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III#Greatest_threats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III#Greatest_threats
      - sophacles 16y ago
        I can play linky too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object#Near-Earth_asteroids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object#Near-Earth_as... There have been many more asteroids passing really close to earth in recent history than "almost nuclear wars". My point still stands -- nonzero chance is a terrible reason to do anything.
    - Retric 16y ago
      I was hit by lighting, and I was vary happy that my personal lighting shield worked. PS: Car
holri 16y ago
If you compare flying vs. car driving upon the live-time spent with this activities, then 2h flying is much more dangerous than 2 hour car driving. Usually this is compared by distinance, but this is wrong. For example last year I spent my holiday nearby driving by car, this year maybe I am going to fly to a distant place utilizing the same transport time. The flying holiday is far more dangerous than the driving one. I do never decide between car and plane for a given goal, therefore the risk relation to the distance is wrong.
- jhamburger 16y ago
  I don't think I agree with your logic here. It seems like you're saying that traveling to far away places is more dangerous than close places, regardless of how you get there. I don't see how that makes flying more dangerous.
  - holri 16y ago
    An example: A bus driver job is far more secure than a pilot job. When comparing activities we should relate spent livetime not distances to risk.
    - jhamburger 16y ago
      Well just about everyone other than Pilots spends a lot more of their life driving than flying, which is still irrelevant to which is the safer mode of transportation. When you boil it down, you're still saying "Going somewhere is more dangerous than not going somewhere."
      - holri 16y ago
        no I am saying that "2 hours flying is more dangerous than 2 hours driving." For the estimate of the risks in my live I am asking what is the safer mode of living. Therefore the risk of an activity hast to be related to spent livetime.
        16y ago
kprobst 16y ago
I think in our lizard brains we prefer to have an imaginary measure of control over how we go. So we'd rather have a 20-foot wall of water bearing down on us at 80mph than to be exposed to invisible radiation. We imagine that we have a chance with the tsunami, but culturally we "know" that we're screwed with the fallout. This is cultural detritus from the duck-and-cover times, when we were told that even if we survived the initial blast of a nuclear weapon, the radiation would inevitably kill us (which isn't necessarily true). I read a book years ago called WarDay, about a hypothetical limited nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the US in the mid-80s. In the beginning of the book, after the attack, the authors describe how they took refuge in a school building and constructed a makeshift geiger counter, which told them how safe it was to go outside to scavenge for food and water and help other survivors. The credit that with saving their lives. In other words, they approached the fallout exposure problem from a scientific standpoint, rather than an emotional one. People can't seem to approach the irradiation problem in other than emotional terms, so the end result is sheer panic. If more people were aware of how to measure and limit exposure, that would give them the control they need to function successfully. Sadly, very few do.

cubix 16y ago

You could also conclude that nuclear weapons are extremely safe to have around since they haven't killed anyone for 65 years. Indeed some people have come to this conclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction

jhamburger 16y ago
I don't disagree in principle, I'm just saying that putting up aggregated statistics for something that lends itself to once-in-a-lifetime catastrophic events doesn't tell us a whole lot. I think even the biggest MAD proponents would agree that the risk of nuclear war is greater than zero.
- pyrhho 16y ago
  I agree with your main point, but I would probably consider being shot with an AK-47 to be a pretty "once-in-a-lifetime catastrophic event".
- sophacles 16y ago
  Risk of something being greater than 0 is an equally uselss measurement. Otherwise we would have multi-trillion dollar asteroid defense networks, alien invasion detectors in the oort cloud, personal lightning shields, lottery backed retirement funds and so on.
  - jhamburger 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III#Greatest_threats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III#Greatest_threats
    - sophacles 16y ago
      I can play linky too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object#Near-Earth_asteroids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object#Near-Earth_as... There have been many more asteroids passing really close to earth in recent history than "almost nuclear wars". My point still stands -- nonzero chance is a terrible reason to do anything.
  - Retric 16y ago
    I was hit by lighting, and I was vary happy that my personal lighting shield worked. PS: Car

holri 16y ago

If you compare flying vs. car driving upon the live-time spent with this activities, then 2h flying is much more dangerous than 2 hour car driving. Usually this is compared by distinance, but this is wrong. For example last year I spent my holiday nearby driving by car, this year maybe I am going to fly to a distant place utilizing the same transport time. The flying holiday is far more dangerous than the driving one. I do never decide between car and plane for a given goal, therefore the risk relation to the distance is wrong.

jhamburger 16y ago
I don't think I agree with your logic here. It seems like you're saying that traveling to far away places is more dangerous than close places, regardless of how you get there. I don't see how that makes flying more dangerous.
- holri 16y ago
  An example: A bus driver job is far more secure than a pilot job. When comparing activities we should relate spent livetime not distances to risk.
  - jhamburger 16y ago
    Well just about everyone other than Pilots spends a lot more of their life driving than flying, which is still irrelevant to which is the safer mode of transportation. When you boil it down, you're still saying "Going somewhere is more dangerous than not going somewhere."
    - holri 16y ago
      no I am saying that "2 hours flying is more dangerous than 2 hours driving." For the estimate of the risks in my live I am asking what is the safer mode of living. Therefore the risk of an activity hast to be related to spent livetime.
      - 16y ago

kprobst 16y ago

I think in our lizard brains we prefer to have an imaginary measure of control over how we go. So we'd rather have a 20-foot wall of water bearing down on us at 80mph than to be exposed to invisible radiation. We imagine that we have a chance with the tsunami, but culturally we "know" that we're screwed with the fallout. This is cultural detritus from the duck-and-cover times, when we were told that even if we survived the initial blast of a nuclear weapon, the radiation would inevitably kill us (which isn't necessarily true). I read a book years ago called WarDay, about a hypothetical limited nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the US in the mid-80s. In the beginning of the book, after the attack, the authors describe how they took refuge in a school building and constructed a makeshift geiger counter, which told them how safe it was to go outside to scavenge for food and water and help other survivors. The credit that with saving their lives. In other words, they approached the fallout exposure problem from a scientific standpoint, rather than an emotional one. People can't seem to approach the irradiation problem in other than emotional terms, so the end result is sheer panic. If more people were aware of how to measure and limit exposure, that would give them the control they need to function successfully. Sadly, very few do.