You’re Much More Likely to Be Killed By Lightning than by a Terrorist

Calm Down … You Are Much More Likely to Be Killed By Boring, Mundane Things than Terrorism

 

The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war.

In contrast, the American agency which tracks health-related issues – the U.S. Centers for Disease Control – rounds up the most prevalent causes of death in the United States:

Comparing the CDC numbers to terrorism deaths means:

– You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

(Keep in mind when reading this entire piece that we are consistently and substantially understating the risk of other causes of death as compared to terrorism, because we are comparing deaths from various causes within the United States against deaths from terrorism worldwide.)

Wikipedia notes that obesity is a a contributing factor in 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year. That makes obesity 5,882 to times 23,528 more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

The annual number of deaths in the U.S. due to avoidable medical errors is as high as 100,000. Indeed, one of the world’s leading medical journals – Lancet – reported in 2011:

A November, 2010, document from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported that, when in hospital, one in seven beneficiaries of Medicare (the government-sponsored health-care programme for those aged 65 years and older) have complications from medical errors, which contribute to about 180 000 deaths of patients per year.

That’s just Medicare beneficiaries, not the entire American public. Scientific American noted in 2009:

Preventable medical mistakes and infections are responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to an investigation by the Hearst media corporation.

And a new study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety says the numbers may be up to 440,000 each year.

But let’s use the lower – 100,000 – figure. That still means that you are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism.

The CDC says that some 80,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive alcohol use. So you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.

Wikipedia notes that there were 32,367 automobile accidents in 2011, which means that you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack. As CNN reporter Fareed Zakaria wrote last month:

“Since 9/11, foreign-inspired terrorism has claimed about two dozen lives in the United States. (Meanwhile, more than 100,000 have been killed in gun homicides and more than 400,000 in motor-vehicle accidents.) “

President Obama agreed.

According to a 2011 CDC report, poisoning from prescription drugs is even more likely to kill you than a car crash. Indeed, the CDC stated in 2011 that – in the majority of states – your prescription meds are more likely to kill you than any other source of injury. So your meds are thousands of times more likely to kill you than Al Qaeda.

The number of deaths by suicide has also surpassed car crashes, and many connect the increase in suicides to the downturn in the economy. Around 35,000 Americans kill themselves each year (and more American soldiers die by suicide than combat; the number of veterans committing suicide is astronomical and under-reported). So you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.

The CDC notes that there were 7,638 deaths from HIV and 45 from syphilis, so you’re 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism.

The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls … most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means that you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack.

The agency in charge of workplace safety – the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration – reports that 4,609 workers were killed on the job in 2011 within the U.S. homeland. In other words, you are 271 times more likely to die from a workplace accident than terrorism.

The CDC notes that 3,177 people died of “nutritional deficiencies” in 2011, which means you are 187 times more likely to starve to death in American than be killed by terrorism.

Scientific American notes:

You might have toxoplasmosis, an infection caused by the microscopic parasite Toxoplasma gondii, which the CDC estimates has infected about 22.5 percent of Americans older than 12 years old

Toxoplasmosis is a brain-parasite. The CDC reports that more than 375 Americans die annually due to toxoplasmosis. In addition, 3 Americans died in 2011 after being exposed to a brain-eating amoeba. So you’re about 22 times more likely to die from a brain-eating zombie parasite than a terrorist.

There were at least 155 Americans killed by police officers in the United States in 2011. That means that you were more than 9 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist.

The 2011 Report on Terrorism from the National Counter Terrorism Center notes that Americans are just as likely to be “crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year” as they are to be killed by terrorists.

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control  show that Americans are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than terrorism. And see this.

The Jewish Daily Forward noted in May that – even including the people killed in the Boston bombing – you are more likely to be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. And see these statistics from CNN.

Reason notes:

[The risk of being killed by terrorism] compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has just published, Background Report: 9/11, Ten Years Later [PDF]. The report notes, excluding the 9/11 atrocities, that fewer than 500 people died in the U.S. from terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2010.

Scientific American reported in 2011:

John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, and Mark Stewart, a civil engineer and authority on risk assessment at University of Newcastle in Australia … contended, “a great deal of money appears to have been misspent and would have been far more productive—saved far more lives—if it had been expended in other ways.”

chart comparing annual fatality risksMueller and Stewart noted that, in general, government regulators around the world view fatality risks—say, from nuclear power, industrial toxins or commercial aviation—above one person per million per year as “acceptable.” Between 1970 and 2007 Mueller and Stewart asserted in a separate paper published last year in Foreign Affairs that a total of 3,292 Americans (not counting those in war zones) were killed by terrorists resulting in an annual risk of one in 3.5 million. Americans were more likely to die in an accident involving a bathtub (one in 950,000), a home appliance (one in 1.5 million), a deer (one in two million) or on a commercial airliner (one in 2.9 million).

The global mortality rate of death by terrorism is even lower. Worldwide, terrorism killed 13,971 people between 1975 and 2003, an annual rate of one in 12.5 million. Since 9/11 acts of terrorism carried out by Muslim militants outside of war zones have killed about 300 people per year worldwide. This tally includes attacks not only by al Qaeda but also by “imitators, enthusiasts, look-alikes and wannabes,” according to Mueller and Stewart.

Defenders of U.S. counterterrorism efforts might argue that they have kept casualties low by thwarting attacks. But investigations by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies suggest that 9/11 may have been an outlier—an aberration—rather than a harbinger of future attacks. Muslim terrorists are for the most part “short on know-how, prone to make mistakes, poor at planning” and small in number, Mueller and Stewart stated. Although still potentially dangerous, terrorists hardly represent an “existential” threat on a par with those posed by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

In fact, Mueller and Stewart suggested in Homeland Security Affairs, U.S. counterterrorism procedures may indirectly imperil more lives than they preserve: “Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year.”

The funds that the U.S. spends on counterterrorism should perhaps be diverted to other more significant perils, such as industrial accidents (one in 53,000), violent crime (one in 22,000), automobile accidents (one in 8,000) and cancer (one in 540). “Overall,” Mueller and Stewart wrote, “vastly more lives could have been saved if counterterrorism funds had instead been spent on combating hazards that present unacceptable risks.” In an e-mail to me, Mueller elaborated:

“The key question, never asked of course, is what would the likelihood be if the added security measures had not been put in place? And, if the chances without the security measures might have been, say, one in 2.5 million per year, were the trillions of dollars in investment (including overseas policing which may have played a major role) worth that gain in security—to move from being unbelievably safe to being unbelievably unbelievably safe? Given that al Qaeda and al Qaeda types have managed to kill some 200 to 400 people throughout the entire world each year outside of war zones since 9/11—including in areas that are far less secure than the U.S.—there is no reason to anticipate that the measures have deterred, foiled or protected against massive casualties in the United States. If the domestic (we leave out overseas) enhanced security measures put into place after 9/11 have saved 100 lives per year in the United States, they would have done so at a cost of $1 billion per saved life. That same money, if invested in a measure that saves lives at a cost of $1 million each—like passive restraints for buses and trucks—would have saved 1,000 times more lives.”

Mueller and Stewart’s analysis is conservative, because it excludes the most lethal and expensive U.S. responses to 9/11. Al Qaeda’s attacks also provoked the U.S. into invading and occupying two countries, at an estimated cost of several trillion dollars. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 Americans so far—more than twice as many as were killed on September 11, 2001—as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.

***

In 2007 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that people are more likely to be killed by lightning than terrorism. “You can’t sit there and worry about everything,” Bloomberg exclaimed. “Get a life. Actually, according to Mueller and Stewart, Americans’ annual risk of dying from lightning, at one in seven million is only half the risk from terrorism.

Indeed,  the Senior Research Scientist for the Space Science Institute (Alan W. Harris) estimates that the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack is about the same as being hit by an asteroid (and see this).

Terrorism pushes our emotional buttons. And politicians and the media tend to blow the risk of terrorism out of proportion. But as the figures above show, terrorism is a very unlikely cause of death.

Indeed, our spending on anti-terrorism measures is way out of whack … especially because most of the money has been wasted.  And see this article, and this 3-minute video by professor Mueller:

Indeed, mission creep in the name of countering terrorism actually makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Note: The U.S. is supporting the most extreme and violent types of Muslims.  Indeed, the U.S. has waived the prohibitions of arming terrorist groups in order to topple the Syrian government … even though the head of the Syrian rebels has called for Al Qaeda to carry out new attacks on America.

Does that sound like a smart way to try to reduce the minimal risks we currently face from terrorism?

Update: Here are the National Safety Council’s numbers for 2009.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • JC

    When you take a look at the amount of money spent on the prevention, treatment and study of heart disease in comparison with what is spent on the prevention of terrorism. It will make you sick. Tens to hundreds of millions for the former but billions for the latter. What a joke.

    • Tonto

      When one reads efficacy studies about what is being done to address heart disease, and then compares the efficacy rates with the efficacy rates for what is being done to prevent terrorism, we have a very similar conclusion. Neither fiscal expenditure is producing a positive result. Both efforts are startlingly negative, startlingly. Open your eyes, people.

      In fact the premise of the article is that the future can be foretold by the statistics of the past. The premise is quite obviously wrong, and just an untenable and unwarranted stretch of the statistician’s imagination. Read the numbers! They mean virtually nothing.

      The truth is, very few people have died from nuclear-power-plant-exposure-to-radiation. A much better prediction of the future can be made here than statistics alone would provide. The statistics concerning nuclear-power-plant-exposure-to-radiation deaths obviously are currently changing. But if anyone says, they can predict the impact of Fukushima on these death statistics, we’d have to give their credibility a wide berth both plus and minus.

      Honestly, NO ONE can predict the future. Those who write articles that profess to predict the future are liars and charlatans. We can however, authentically weigh and measure what is categorically true. Everyone involved knew there was not only a risk of danger in nuclear technology industries. Everyone knew there was also the sure likelihood of such a disaster -due to human nature. Homer Simpson is not a real fella. But the human nature story he depicts in caricature is very real.

      The phenomenon same is true of terrorism. Terrorism is a reasonable human response to certain impersonal stresses that have arisen in our stressful world. And terrorism deaths could skyrocket with just a single event. It is however, a much wiser course to address the root causes of -the threat of terrorism-, than it ever could be to try to address -acts of terrorism-.

      When an act of terrorism has occurred, it is seemingly too late to do anything proactively about it. The anti-terrorism approach that might provide the greatest efficacy possible, is to reduce the stresses that cause people to conduct acts of terrorism.

      Globalization is causing terrorism in our world today, folks, globalization and the increasingly heinous scientific and bureaucratic intrusion into and interference in all of our lives. When the anti-science terrorists realize their wider popular potential, there will be a likely adjustment to what we all expect out of life.

      • james

        Tonto,
        For a person who wants to appear to be knowledgeable about truth , you certainly play fast and loose with facts…

        First off, there is no more proof that “very few people have died from nuclear power plant exposure” than “very many people have died from nuclear power plant exposure” – because the truth of the matter is suppressed.

        The fact that nuclear accidents large and small are very aggressively concealed is strong evidence that whatever the facts on the danger and deaths from nuclear power are, they are not fit to be revealed to the public, and thus worse than acknowledged.

        And before you try to argue for one second that concealment does not occur, I offer you to take a look at the Fukushima webcams: The country that can produce HDTV cameras that fit in the palm of your hand and take crystal clear video of your family on vacation – that country cannot take anything but blurry, shaky, unreliable video of the worst nuclear disaster in history.

        Now, on the topic of terrorism and “security”. The recent Syria fiasco has, in my opinion, awakened the American public to the fact that they are being manipulated for political means. That video of the guy taking on John McCain and calling him guilty of treason and the crowd turning on him must have run through the Capital like a wildfire. I bet none of them would admit having seen it, and every one of them saw it. I think it neutralized McCain on the topic and will probably destroy him in the next election.

        The article above merely points out that a distortion of the facts: namely severely overhyping the terrorist threat far above other much more dangerous threats, has allowed the government to write itself a “blank check” to do whatever it desires in the name of terrorism.

        I believe this activity is not only unethical, immoral and downright despicable, it also has virtually ground our economy to a halt. When Americans believe foreigners are “terrorists” they aren’t likely to engage in commerce with them at home or abroad.

        When American businessmen and women are sick and tired of being poked and prodded at the airport, they stop flying and stop collaborating on innovative ideas, which create products and jobs .

        When trillions of dollars in American tax money is diverted to secret domestic spying operations, those dollars aren’t used publicly to create products and ideas and education for the public, which will multiply in the economy. Furthermore, it gives tremendous economic leverage to certain individuals if they are willing to engage in nefarious activities with that data – and it certainly appears that there are folks already engaged in that activity.

        When Americans are so afraid of their government that they feel the need to arm themselves to the hilt, it creates an environment of distrust, negativity and despair.

        When Americans see their President obviously lie to them about bombing another country for reasons that are not revealed to them – then it sets a poor ethical standard that devolves the entire society.

        I believe for the reasons above, and probably several others, we in America, to use an aviation term, have entered a stall/spin attitude. Can we recover? I don’t know, but failure to acknowlege the seriousness of the situation is a pretty bad sign in my opinion

  • jo6pac

    You could change the title to More Likely to be Killed by Local Police even if you weren’t doing anything wrong.

  • Voice of Reason

    Is there a way to calculate the odds of being killed by
    radioactive seafood as a result of the ‘leaks’ from Fukushima?
    My choice, of course, would be ‘none of the above’. But from what I’ve seen, getting blown up
    would be a lot better way to die than from cancer.

    I remember reading that some of the particles produced in
    the process of producing nuclear power will remain toxic to all forms of life
    we know about for the expected lifetime of our planet. The prospect of energy “too cheap to meter”
    was certainly worth exploring. But what
    kind of sociopathic mindset permits one generation to poison the earth until
    the end of time because it does not want to pay the cost of deriving the energy
    it requires from sustainable sources?

    • Ken Meyer

      you may be surprised, but oceans naturally contain about 4 Billion metric tonnes of uranium, that is 3,3 microgram per liter. Do you think Fukushima makes a difference, except locally?

      • Tonto

        That’s a handy statistic, Mr. Meyer. And it would be meaningful, were it relevant. But it is like saying, there are umpteen-zillion tons of water in the oceans.

        The uranium component of the pollution coming out of Fukushima is not even measurably significant. Incredibly, you seem to be telling everyone here, “Don’t worry about Fukushima,” based on your intentionally deceptive citation of scientific gibberish.

        I don’t worry about Fukushima. There’s little that can be done about Fukushima. I worry about apologists for science, like yourself, scientists and propagandist fools who think they have the right to play God with the only world we have. In that sense, Fukushima makes a huge difference.

        It’s you who makes no difference, Mr. Meyers. You’re a liar, a liar intent on spreading lies with deception, by quoting facts that are irrelevant, in the hope some will take a meaning from your irrelevant statement, a meaning that is not at all supported by the dire situation at Fukushima and in the ecosystem of the Pacific Ocean as a whole.

        This sort of decption is what is behind science today, folks. Science today is made of rhetorical liars like Mr. Meyers who make these preposterous statements that are intended to fool the average person with a not-so clever deception.

        • Voice of Reason

          Tonto, Tonto,

          What’s with all this hostility? The more civil way to describe Mr. Meyer is as a ‘useful idiot’. But both of you could do better, in the case of Mr. Meyer by discussing the relevant poisons like plutonium (and that’s a euphemism) and in the other by using language that is less of a turn-off.

          But science, Tonto, is all we have. Without it a large percentage of
          the 7 billion people now on earth will die. That doesn’t seem to bother
          you though if you were one of them, I’m guessing it would. What Mr. Meyer is practicing is not science but ‘public relations’, or less charitably, shilling. But see.
          You’ve got me doing it now. Mr. Meyer could just be uninformed –and that hasn’t stopped a lot of us from expressing our opinions.

          • Tonto

            Mr. Reason-

            You say, ” Without it [science] a large percentage of the 7 billion people now on earth will die.”

            You are as much a shill as Mr. Meyers. You are saying science is necessary for the survival of humanity, or at least a large percentage of humanity. Unfortunately, this sort of shilling goes on, and has gone on, endlessly. You are arguing, that we need science to fix the problems science has created on this earth, the world over.

            Let me explain something to you ONCE, “Voice of Reason”.

            You are articulating the democratic notion, that society needs to protect a large proportion of the current population from their sure destruction at the hands of their dependence on scientific support mechanisms. Unfortunately, very unfortunately, your logic is insufficient. Your logic is insufficient, because science is not up to the task to which you appoint it.

            A very large proportion of humanity is going to die off, because science has no real answers. Science merely has been inculcating half-fixes for many decades now, many decades during which the scientifically-dependent population has exploded a hundred-fold.

            Those half-fixes have reached a complexity level where these are crumbling faster than new half-fixes can be instituted. This is due to the nature of our infinitely complex reality, from which we can easily deduce that with this ever greater complexity also comes an ever more rapid deterioration of the efficacy of these scientific half fixes due to a rising number of anomalies concurrently throwing a monkey wrench into the interdependent works. That should sound very familiar to everyone, because this is where we are today. Societies are crumbling under the weight of deteriorating scientific half fixes.

            Now, concerning your feeble moral notion that we cannot let such a large proportion of the population fall into the scientific abyss that has been created, you are not considering an even larger number of people that demand our moral attention even more. Those are the people who are coming in the future into this world.

            And those future people, if I may be so bold as to surmise for them, they do not want those of us who are already basking in the warm sun on the beach at the grand party that is life, to risk their habitable future on planet earth with any more idiotic science such as Mr Meyers and you are shilling for.

            Science has no real solutions. Science only can provide half fixes. This is due to the nature of empirical knowledge, which does not focus on the whole problem, and cannot focus on the whole problem.

            Science is the dead-end we have arrived at due to the faulty knowledge base that has been built by science. We either learn from our scientific mistakes, or we shut the door completely for the future humanity of the world, those that would replace us in their time. Morally, only they matter, when their yet-unborn lives are at stake. And that is exactly what is at stake, the unborn lives of countless human beings who are going to be shut out by any continued scientific delusion such as you and Mr. Meyers possess, e.g., that science can make a better world, or, fix the existing one. It’s just not true, Mr. Reason.

            Science has not made the world better. Science has steadily marched our captured humanity ever faster in the direction of destroying the world. Not recognizing this problem is simply not logical. Nor is it reasonable. Continuing down the scientific path is suicidal. Shilling for science is deviltry.

            Take a look around. Is the world better? No, the world is not better for science. The whole path of science has been a huge, untenable gamble. And as it turns out, any faith in science is like putting your faith in the devil.

          • Voice of Reason

            What you are talking about Tonto is not science but
            business. Science is what enables us to
            see that “Houston,
            we have a problem”. Science or just
            logic and common sense is what tells us not to place all our bets on one
            horse. In my book the right to life
            (i.e. the right of those now living as opposed to the right to spawn yet more
            life) trumps the right to make money.

            You may well be correct about the fait awaiting a very large
            proportion of humanity. But it isn’t
            because science is not up to the task – though it is getting very late in the
            day. It will be because people like you
            don’t like the answers that it provides.
            If there is a right to life, there is also a trade off between the
            absolute minimum of resources required to sustain that life in the narrowest
            biological sense and the resources required to provide what many of us believe
            are required to give that life some meaning, some value.

            For people like you however, it appears to be easier to
            condemn the complexities involved in difficult ethical and technical problems –
            to condemn and reject the tool than to use it to address the challenges. You seem to be saying that humanity’s
            problems began with the discovery of fire and will not be solved until we
            abandon its use. The proper use of
            science has indeed made the world a better place. The Nobel Prize winning chemist Frederick
            Soddy summed up the problem. “Science
            has become the handmaiden of business.”
            The dead-end at which we may have arrived is not due to science but a
            failure to heed its warnings.

          • Tonto

            Mr. Reason-

            I am thankful for your response. It shows you are actually reading and comprehending what I am saying. Your ability is rare. Your patience even rarer. Still, let me add to what I already have said, and we’ll see what you think then, having digested where I really do draw the line in the sand, as opposed to where you, a thinking person, might attempt to draw such a line for me, before all the arguments are in.

            You must admit, the average person does not have your reading and comprehension skills. Most, the vast majority in fact, will never be able to climb the heights of this erudite discussion. There’s the bugger. That’s why the line is drawn in the sand for me, where it is, and not where you put it for me.

            You see, the knowledge sets of science are not just available to you and I. (And I actually have no faith you or I should have access to these scientific knowledge sets. We too are human.) These scientific knowledge sets, and the fruits of applied science, are however, available to these unthinking cretins (for want of a better word). Even were these dangerous knowledge tools kept locked-up however, you must admit, upon some small bit of reflection, that there is scientific knowledge no one should have at hand. Such is human nature, variable throughout a lifetime. And here too, we find another line I draw in the sand, where others might not think to draw it for me.

            For these cretins, those who generally sign-on to endorsing the endless and futile search for the next scientific breakthrough, supposed breakthroughs that will solve all the world’s problems, the line where the pursuit of scientific knowledge crowds the capacity of these cretins to reflect and comprehend. Draw the line there for me. I do not endorse the idea of scientific gods who can make a better world, or repair the one science has provided the tools for these cretins to dismantle and destroy piecemeal.

            I may think you are capable of being persuaded by a logical discussion against certain scientific knowledge experiments. But you are a rarity. The vast majority would of course say, throw the switch. We’ll pick up the pieces afterwards, if there are any left. This is the unfortunate scientific ethic equivalent of letting God sort them all out, on a grand scale, indeed.

            I see no differentiation between the immoral steps business takes, when those steps would never have been made possible were it not for science. Scientists are not fools, not to the last one anyway. Enough scientists recognize their work is both dangerous in the wrong hands, and -sure- to be misused. The retrospective analysis of scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project is a classic historical case of this phenomenon. But, you are certainly clever enough to recognize, such a perspective does not require a retrospective view of the results.

            Humanity is at that precipice right now, or more likely, off and well over that precipice. The scientific game is over. Still, there are other knowledge sets, other than science, knowledge sets that make science seem as primitive as science once made superstitious knowledge sets appear. I have written here of such a knowledge set before, Categorical Knowledge.

            Categorical Knowledge supersedes science completely. Categorical Knowledge is that knowledge that is true in every instance, without any exception. Categorical Knowledge alters logic, forcing the investigator to return back to the beginning as every other step of any logical process, to ensure no contradictions have arisen in the logical process.

            There are very view Categorical-Knowledge-set logical statements at present. But these are very powerful. These have been arrived at by reflecting upon the long history of human thought, accomplishments and consideration about what is the truth.

            Consider the importance to logic on just one categorically true knowledge statement. Just one such true statement is immensely important.

            I give you two.

            1) Reality is infinitely complex.

            2) The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.

            Proper consideration of these two categorically true statements is not to be done in a single lifetime. To get to the fruit of their logical implications, will take a millennium. Pray humanity has that millennium left to expend upon such erudite reflection.

            In the mean time, enjoy the party that is life. Unlike most in this world, you deserve it. Life doesn’t get any better than it is right now, to share it in a fruitful conversation free of belligerence and animosity.

          • dodgy

            …A very large proportion of humanity is going to die off, because science has no real answers. Science merely has been inculcating half-fixes for many decades now, many decades during which the scientifically-dependent population has exploded a hundred-fold….

            ALL of us are going to die off. At some point. Science has successfully extended that point – doubling average life-span compared to pre-industrial times. And your view is that that does not make the world better?

        • Joshua Cappuccilli

          a liar, a liar spreading lies with deception. ¿¿???

          How could spread lies WITHOUT deception? Thats just stupid.

    • dodgy

      …I remember reading that some of the particles produced in
      the process of producing nuclear power will remain toxic to all forms of life
      we know about for the expected lifetime of our planet….

      I remember reading that fairies live at the bottom of my garden.

      It’s hard to address this sort of ignorance in a few sentences, but you should note that highly radioactive elements are only highly radioactive because they are disintegrating, and therefore becoming less dangerous as time goes on. Typically, the period that they are highly dangerous for is a few hundred years at maximum.

      However, some elements, such as arsenic, are dangerous for chemical reasons. They will remain dangerous to life for the lifetime of the planet, and beyond. Interestingly, Plutonium, which is often touted as ‘the most toxic material on Earth’ is mildly chemically toxic as well as mildly radioactive. In the 1940s some 26 workers at US nuclear weapons facilities became contaminated with plutonium. Intensive health checks of these people have revealed no serious consequence and no fatalities that could be attributed to the exposure. In the 1990s plutonium was injected into and inhaled by some volunteers, without adverse effects. In the 1950s Queen Elizabeth II was visiting Harwell and was handed a lump of plutonium (presumably Pu-239) in a plastic bag and invited to feel how warm it was.

      There are certainly dangers associated with radioactive substances, as there are with all industrial substances. People have died through radiation accidents – they have also died through chemical accidents. No one is saying that radiation is perfectly safe. But it is stupid to exaggerate these dangers for political reasons, and use pointless rhetorical exhortations which are straightforward lies…

  • Anon

    In related news, LBJ and the CIA were behind the Assassination of JFK.

    Who Really Assassinated JFK? Interview with Dr. Jerome Corsi SEPT 17 2013- EXCELLENT!

    (Interview with Dr. Jerome Corsi, begins at approx. 38 min. mark)

    • Joshua Cappuccilli

      These discussions always bring out the freaking nuts jobs and conspiracy freaks.

  • Anon

    We’ve been living under the SAME REGIME, since at least Nov. 22, 1963.

  • Scottar

    You much more likely to be killed by Obama and his administration, along with commie progressives and Rinos.

 

 

Twitter