2 ms·
I already said the risk is nearly zero. Read it carefully. Yet, if there is a risk, even if it is at 0.1%, precaution is required. And when this impacts the li
by yeukhon 13y ago
I already said the risk is nearly zero. Read it carefully.
Yet, if there is a risk, even if it is at 0.1%, precaution is required. And when this impacts the lives of hundreds of passengers, the risk is more than just me dying on the street tomorrow.
-- edit --
whoever downvote is probably a kid.
- PeterisP 13y ago"a risk exists" does not really imply "precaution is required" - there is a risk that you'll be fatally struck by a lightning tomorrow, but it doesn't imply that you need to stay indoors as a precaution. "Nearly zero" does not equal other "nearly zero" - most "nearly zero" effects are with very, very different nearness to zero. Me dying in a traffic accident tomorrow is a near-zero chance, and me dying of a lightning strike tomorrow is a near-zero chance, but they are very different chances. The sole fact of you mentioning 0.1% indicates a problem with such comparisons - risk of dying in any terrorist attack is orders of magnitude different than 0.1% and thus deserves uncomparably smaller attention than a real 0.1% risk. Your short trip from home to airport deserves more precautions than terrorists on the planes. Even taking into account 'hundreds or passengers', the risk is uncomparably much smaller than you simply dying on the street tomorrow - that's how the numbers work out in reality, even if it may feel otherwise emotionally.