(Page 2 of 15)
James M. Mulch br> Grand Island, NY /p>With certainty, it's fair to each of us are risk managers, whether we believe it or not or want to do it or not, since risks cannot be eliminated.
Applying the professor's statistical view of that nuisance called terrorism and his novel approach to de-emphasizing its associated risks, perhaps we should reconsider our view of airline travel, in general, as well as fire prevention and fighting. After all, it's been suggested that the probability of dying from airplane crashes or by fire and flames is, respectively, very, very low or just low.
p>Maybe we can save some money by cutting back on or even curtailing safety rules for airliners and air travel, research on innovative methods to enhance safety and preventive maintenance on the planes -- or reducing or de-emphasizing fire-fighting methods, prevention measures and departments? br> -- C. Kenna Amos br> Princeton, West Virginia /p>While I agree with the thrust of Mr. Klein's article I must take exception to his use of statistics. His describing the odds of a person dieing in a terrorist attack as 1 in 80,000, presumably Mr. Mueller's assertion, "roughly the same odds as getting killed by an asteroid," are not given attribution to Mr. Mueller so I can only assume the analogy is his. There is a rather large problem with his numbers. Assuming that he means 1 in 80,000 in any given year, if the year is 2006 and the world population estimate is 6.5 billion, then we should be having asteroid caused deaths on the order of 8,125,000 annually.
p>I believe the last asteroid strike on this planet was perhaps the Tunguska event in 1908. I'm sure far less than 8 million people perished then. If I'm in error in what Mr. Klein was saying I'm sure I'm not alone, but if I'm not then off handed comments such as these cause anyone with a calculator to be able to disprove, and dismiss, not just his assertion but his entire argument. br> -- Keith H. Lepley br> Davenport, Florida