Relative risk of terrorism

Jeffrey

http://megmclain.com/2011/09/22/new-infographic-on-the-risk-of-terrorism/

For example: a random person is eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than in a terrorist attack.

vinlyn

What is your point?

Jeffrey

I was presenting the information for all to draw their own conclusions.

I personally find it interesting how concerned people are over the risk of terrorist attacks when there are so many things that are overlooked yet more dangerous. I certainly grant that some attempt is made by wise people to prevent each of those events. Yet people are willing to go to war to prevent such an unlikely accident.

Sile

I love this, Jeffrey, thank you--thought about this often after 9/11, and it's really something to see the numbers.

Risk sells--whether it's well-founded risk, or well-promoted risk.

vinlyn

I think, perhaps, that some have forgotten how we felt on 9/11 and the immediate days afterwards. Perhaps I felt it more than most people on this forum because of where I lived -- less than 7 miles from the Capitol and Pentagon and CIA Headquarters. The school where I was Principal was next to one of the largest Jewish temples in the Washington area, and as a result, we were considered a potential target. Now, many of us have become rather complacent about it.

I look at the above list and I see a number of things that are my government's responsibility to prevent, including terrorism. I also see a number of things that are my personal responsibility to permit.

Needless death ought to be prevented.

Jeffrey

Just as an example reflect on how funding subsidized colonoscopies and chemo for those in need would save lives. But we don't have enough money for that.

Think how school lunch programs which serves hotdog, tator tots, and ketchup as a vegetable could be improved to prevent habits leading to heart disease which is 17,000 times more likely than dying in a terrorist attack. But we don't have the resources to serve a balanced lunch in our schools.

Sile

Just as an example reflect on how funding subsidized colonoscopies and chemo for those in need would save lives. But we don't have enough money for that.

Think how school lunch programs which serves hotdog, tator tots, and ketchup as a vegetable could be improved to prevent habits leading to heart disease which is 17,000 times more likely than dying in a terrorist attack. But we don't have the resources to serve a balanced lunch in our schools.

Too tragically true.

Theswingisyellow

OUR RISK IS VERY HIGH!!! TERRORIST ARE EVERYWHERE!!!
THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

vinlyn

Just as an example reflect on how funding subsidized colonoscopies and chemo for those in need would save lives. But we don't have enough money for that.

Think how school lunch programs which serves hotdog, tator tots, and ketchup as a vegetable could be improved to prevent habits leading to heart disease which is 17,000 times more likely than dying in a terrorist attack. But we don't have the resources to serve a balanced lunch in our schools.

1. Jeffrey, having been a school Principal, why go back to a short period of time when -- during the Reagan administration -- there was a proposalto class ketchup as a vegetable.

2. Why should the government subsidize colonoscopies? Of my four best friends here in Colorado Springs...I am having a colonoscopy on Monday at noon, another had hers last Tuesday, another is having hers a week from Monday, another has had 3, and yet another had hers a year ago.

Jeffrey

@vinylyn, regarding the colonoscopies/chemo in all likelyhood there are people who cannot have those procedures due to insufficient funds. Regarding the school lunches I am just recollecting from my highschool days. Has it changed to lunches with lower amounts of saturated fat and greater nutritional value?

vinlyn

@vinylyn, regarding the colonoscopies/chemo in all likelyhood there are people who cannot have those procedures due to insufficient funds. Regarding the school lunches I am just recollecting from my highschool days. Has it changed to lunches with lower amounts of saturated fat and greater nutritional value?

There are several questions worth addressing about the school lunch issue.

1. Why should the government finance school lunches?
2. What will the kids actually eat? I know...I watched most of the nutritious stuff go in the trash cans, while the kids chose lousy pizza and french fries, etc., while almost no students went into the salad bar.

There was a recent story on the improvement on school lunches that will be coming up as of next fall. Wonder how the kids will like pizza on whole wheat crust?

In regard to the colonoscopy issue, yes, some may not be getting them who need them. But again, particularly in the budget crunch this country is in, is it the government's responsibility to pay for everyone's health costs. I'm all for the Obama health plan (particularly since the GOP can't even come up with an alternative), but that is not the same as saying the government should pay for everyone's health care.

Telly03

The risk calculations do not included the unsuccessful planning and attempts... I'm thankful for all the work that went into keeping the risk low. It is a success story.

zombiegirl

The risk calculations do not included the unsuccessful planning and attempts... I'm thankful for all the work that went into keeping the risk low. It is a success story.

This is what I was thinking. I assume that these numbers were gained by comparing deaths by terrorist attacks vs. deaths by _______. Obviously, our government puts a lot of money into prevention of terrorist attacks, if we were to divert those sources, the death rate from terrorism might be much higher and the numbers might say something differently. Impossible to know, but important to consider.

vinlyn

The risk calculations do not included the unsuccessful planning and attempts... I'm thankful for all the work that went into keeping the risk low. It is a success story.

That's a very good point. I have contacts back in the D.C. area who work for the government. While they would never give me any specific information, they would say to me, "Vince, trust me, you don't know about all the attempts."

Brian

What is your point?

It's called "discussion", which is what we do here. Be nice!

Jeffrey

@vinylyn and telly, good points. In regards to vinylyns I would point out simply that the society in all likelyhood would benefit more from subsidizing healthy lunches than it benefits from waging war to prevent terrorism.

Regarding telly's point it is a good one but I think it is hard to know how many terrorist attacks are prevented by TSA scanners for example.

Zero

The risk of an individual being at the epicentre of a terrorist attack is low however the effect of a terrorist attack is much larger - the data presented above doesnt take account of the effect on family members, associates or on the psychology of the wider community.

What if the question were say more like 'Whats the risk of being significantly physically or mentally traumatised from a terrorist attack'.

Its challenging reconciling the overall response however - when foreign policy involves homeland strikes abroad with no risk of reprisal, the only option for retaliation is a small cell attack on lesser protected targets.

The initial foreign policy and relative strength of the party dictates the response.

Everyone really really need to just stop and start talking to each other with a clean slate. If you stand back and look in, its rediculous...

Jeffrey

@Zero, I see your point, but aren't there even more families with loved ones dying from heart attack? etc

vinlyn

@vinylyn and telly, good points. In regards to vinylyns I would point out simply that the society in all likelyhood would benefit more from subsidizing healthy lunches than it benefits from waging war to prevent terrorism.

But you see, we already do. In general, school lunch programs do not turn a profit, so to some extent state and local tax dollars are spent on providing a school lunch program. Then there are two subsidies -- one for students who need a partial subsidy (we usually refer to this as the "reduced lunch" program -- meaning the student pays less per lunch than the average student), and then there is what we usually call the free lunch program for students who cannot afford to pay for their lunch at all. I was the only person in my building, other than the cafeteria supervisor) who had access to the list of students in each program...and is was a surprisingly high number involved.

You simply cannot provide a nutritious and delicious meal for students with what the taxpayers are willing to foot. And if we eliminated all funding for anti-terrorism, the taxpayers still wouldn't fund the school lunch program anymore than they do now. And should we? Shouldn't parents feed their own children?

vinlyn

What is your point?

It's called "discussion", which is what we do here. Be nice!

I really wasn't trying to be insulting. Jeffrey, a good poster, posted a diagram/chart, but didn't state his purpose. Is he trying to say that it's surprising how we misunderstand the frequency of terrorism? Is he trying to say that we are spending too much money on anti-terrorism efforts? I'm just not sure where he was trying to go on this chart/diagram.

vinlyn

The risk of an individual being at the epicentre of a terrorist attack is low however the effect of a terrorist attack is much larger - the data presented above doesnt take account of the effect on family members, associates or on the psychology of the wider community.

What if the question were say more like 'Whats the risk of being significantly physically or mentally traumatised from a terrorist attack'.

Its challenging reconciling the overall response however - when foreign policy involves homeland strikes abroad with no risk of reprisal, the only option for retaliation is a small cell attack on lesser protected targets.

The initial foreign policy and relative strength of the party dictates the response.

Everyone really really need to just stop and start talking to each other with a clean slate. If you stand back and look in, its rediculous...

I agree. How serious of a terrorist attack would result in a financial meltdown in this country? From Wikipedia: "The attacks had significant economic repercussions for the United States and world markets. The New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange and NASDAQ...remained closed until September 17...When the stock markets reopened on September...after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1933, the Dow Jones Industrial Average...fell 684 points, or 7.1%...its biggest-ever one-day point decline, which would not be matched until the Financial Crisis of 2007–2009...By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history. US stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week."

Zero

@Jeffrey - good point - I suppose in part that would mitigate the results but again on the other hand, those deaths are from natural causes - I have no direct experience - what I have interpreted from what I've seen is that an untimely death especially a murder is very challenging to reconcile and more so than a natural death... its not pleasant imagining it even.

One meditation I do is sometimes I am standing still and the man next to me stands still too and then my neighbour and then the street and then the town and then the city and then the country and then the world... everyone standing still just being in that moment - we all put down the guns, the knives, the money, the clothes, the jewellery the hate, the words and stand still together - one day when I move again we'll all start with a clean slate.

Jeffrey

@vinylyn, I'm not touching on what tax payers should do. I am pointing out that free healthy lunches would benefit our countries citizens more than the two wars.

@all, I hadn't thought of the relationship of the terrorist attacks to the economy. That is a huge point.

Really I didn't post this entirely with a big agenda. I just had some thoughts when looking at the stats.

Zero

I never thought you did @jeffrey - you catalysed a very interesting dabate - cant speak for everyone but I am grateful - its great that people put thoughts up and talk - it starts at one thing and then takes a mind of its own... well done mate.

Sile

The chances of any mass terrorism plot succeeding are low, and always have been. It doesn't mean they won't happen; it does mean we in America for example, as practically an island, are not greatly at risk.

Nothing has increased our risk more than the bombing of Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani civilians over the past ten years. We have created enemies out of thousands of families who did not used to be our enemy. If a kid's father or mother was killed by an American bomb or one of my fellow soldiers, who could ever blame that child for wanting revenge?

It is insanity.

Sile

And for those who believe military retaliation was the right answer, then why did we not bomb the Saudis, who funded 9/11 and provided 15 of the 19 hijackers? Instead we bombed tiny villages in the rocks of Afghanistan, and then invaded Iraq, even though not one single Afghani nor Iraqi participated in the attacks of 9/11.

Telly03

@sile No one claimed to have attacked Iraq out of terrorist retaliation... And i have the opposite view in that nothing decreased the risk more than disrupting the terrorist training camps and hunting down the financiers, planners and recruiters of terrorism. The world is a safer place without the likes of Bin Laden operating freely without the threat of being held responsible for their participation in mass murdering.

What would have been a better plan than taking out the Taliban who were protecting the terrorist operations ?