The logic of irrational fear

[hobbes]

The sniper, risk and public reaction The logic of irrational fear
Oct 17th 2002 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition
The reaction to the sniper reveals a lot about Americans' perception of risk
THE suburbs of the nation's capital are locked down. The Washington Area Girls Soccer League went on with its 2001 tournament despite the September 11th attacks. This year's event was cancelled because of the sniper who has killed nine people in the Washington area. Hundreds of schools have been operating under a “code blue”, which prohibits all outdoor activity. Autumnal trips to pumpkin patches have been cancelled. And for those who dare to venture out of their homes, traffic dragnets designed to trap the killer's white van cause hours of delay.
Contrast that with the reaction to September 11th. Then George Bush went on television urging the country to start spending again, to travel again and, in so far as possible, not to let daily life be disrupted. What accounts for the difference?
There are two and a half “logical” explanations. First, the nature of the events themselves. The enormity of September 11th put it in a category of its own. It was perceived as a one-off event, even though al-Qaeda is continuing its war. The sniper's attacks are much more obviously part of a series; indeed, he is constantly compared to other serial murderers.
Second, the political and legal concerns of the relevant authorities differ. Last year Mr Bush needed to reassure America that “terrorists would not win”. For school superintendents, the small risk of having a child shot far outweighs the passing inconvenience of cancelled events. They also run the risk of being sued.
Experts seem to agree that Americans find it harder than most people to evaluate risks accurately
The half-logical explanation concerns the scale of the sniper-murders. The nine murders took place in five counties with a total population of 3.1m. Over the course of the two weeks the sniper has been at work, there was a one-in-344,000 chance of being killed by him. That figure is tiny, but it equates on an annualised basis to a theoretical murder rate of 7.5 for every 100,000 people. That compares with a murder rate of 3.4 for those counties in 2000 (the last year for which all figures are available). And three-quarters of the area's “ordinary” murders took place in one county, Prince George's. The annual rate for the other four counties is only 1.4. In theory, the risk for their inhabitants has been raised several times by the sniper.
This is mathematically logical—but it is also bogus. The sniper cannot continue at the same rate; he has already had to slow down, and he was nearly caught at his last murder. He will surely either stop or be caught.
So it is fair to say both that people are understandably alarmed, and that they are still exaggerating the risk. Why? Experts seem to agree that Americans find it harder than most people to evaluate risks accurately. Lawsuits, labels on coffee cups (“Warning: the beverage you are about to enjoy is extremely hot”), even political pronouncements all often suggest it is possible to avoid danger altogether.
Beyond that, there are a number of specific reasons why potential victims in any country would find it difficult to evaluate the risk from the sniper. People generally exaggerate spectacular but low-probability risks, such as murder or natural disaster, just as they underestimate more common risks, such as accidents in the home.
In this case, adds Kip Viscusi, an economist at the Harvard Law School, Americans face a new sort of risk—and people do not know how to evaluate something they have never seen before. There has never been a serial killer like the sniper. Other serial murderers have preyed on particular groups—often young women or boys. The sniper has killed randomly at a distance. This means no one in the Washington area can give any reason why he or she should not be the next victim.
Because the risk is new, it is also uncertain. As Mr Viscusi points out, people tend to overestimate unknown risks. Economists call this “risk-ambiguity aversion”. And in this case the main source of information for Washingtonians is the blanket, sometimes hysterical coverage from television and newspapers, which tends to exaggerate the perceived risk further. Everyone knows the number of murders. Few know how many people live in the affected area, or the murder rate.
Lastly, the sniper-killings share some peculiarities with other risks that are also exaggerated. One of the victims was a child—and parents dramatically overestimate any uncommon threat to their children's lives (such as the risk of kidnapping by a stranger). Similarly, the sniper represents an “involuntary” risk, not one you run willingly for a benefit (such as driving too fast to get somewhere). People worry less about voluntary risks.
Worst of all, the risk is hard to mitigate. You cannot easily lessen it by changing behaviour—like wearing a seat belt. The only way to remove yourself from the sniper's mercy is not to go out at all. But that brings out another unusual side to this case. On the roads, the more people drive carefully, the lower your own risk. Here, if more people stay home, your risk actually rises marginally. If, say, the sniper chooses a commercial parking lot and only half the usual number of customers are there, your chances of being a victim double.
In such bizarre circumstances, fear can easily seem exaggerated. But it is hardly irrational to be scared and perplexed.

[hobbes]

Australian Broadcasting Corporation LATELINE Late night news & current affairs
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT Broadcast: 18/10/2002
Downer warns of terror threats in Jakarta Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer speaks to Maxine McKew about warnings from the PM that the situation is infinitely more dangerous for travellers and others in Indonesia. Mr Downer outlines new additional information about possible threats in Jakarta itself, in particular in certain specific suburbs of Jakarta.
Compere: Maxine McKew Reporter: Maxine McKew
MAXINE McKEW, PRESENTER: Now for the latest assessment of events from Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer.
I spoke to him a short time ago in Adelaide.
Alexander Downer, the PM has said today from Bali that the situation is infinitely more dangerous for travellers and others in Indonesia.
Presumably this is why you issued a fresh travel advice today.
What are the details?
ALEXANDER DOWNER, FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER: Yes, I mean, yesterday my department issued a travel advice drawing people's attention to new information that we have which suggests that there could be further attacks against Westerners in Indonesia.
Today we got some additional information about possible threats in Jakarta itself, in particular in certain specific suburbs of Jakarta.
So we are getting quite a bit of information at the moment about potential threats, potential bomb attacks, especially against Westerners, but not necessarily. But the focus, I think, of these warnings must be Westerners and therefore, in our case, Australians.
So we are very concerned about the security situation in Indonesia.
MAXINE McKEW: Now, is this new advice off the back of the news that, in fact, Abu Bakar Bashir is to be brought in for questioning tomorrow?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, it's not.
This is on the basis of other information we've had through intelligence sources.
Clearly, if Bashir is to be detained for questioning by the Indonesian authorities, then we have to look very closely at the implications in terms of security of that as well.
There could be substantial on-the-street reactions because Bashir certainly has, not widespread support, but fervent support, amongst a relatively small percentage of the population.
But as you know, he's the spiritual leader of an organisation called Jemaah Islamiah, or JI, as we call it.
This is an organisation which does have some links with al-Qa'ida.
It may have been involved in the Bali bombing, and as the spiritual leader of that so-called organisation, he has particular totemic significance.
MAXINE McKEW: In that case could there be some suggestion of civil unrest?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: There could be some reaction amongst his supporters.
And that is a concern we have.
And that reaction amongst his supporters could be directed, again, against Western interests.
So we are telling people -- look, don't go to Indonesia unless you absolutely have to.
And if you're in Indonesia on a short-term stay and you feel your security is threatened, for heaven's sake, do believe.
We want to make that absolutely clear to people.
MAXINE McKEW: What does this mean for the families who are staying on in Bali while the bodies of their loved ones are identified?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, it's the same story.
I mean, this for everybody is cold comfort because we don't have specific warnings in reaction to Bali.
There's obviously just been the horrific bomb attack there.
People will stay in Indonesia for one reason or another, and I think I should say this -- that whilst, I repeat, we do recommend people leave Indonesia, it's going to be understandable that families want to stay on until the bodies of their loved ones are released by the authorities.
MAXINE McKEW: What does it mean, Minister, for embassy personnel?
Are you getting to the point whether you may consider, in fact, withdrawing non-essential staff?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, we've told the staff today and we've advised the Australian community in Jakarta of this as well -- that, on a voluntary basis, staff and their dependants are able to leave Indonesia should they wish to do so.
But we don't want to close down our embassy in Indonesia.
I think that would be quite the wrong thing for us to do.
It's important the Australian Government retains a significant presence on the ground there.
There are risks involved.
The embassy has had its security strengthened by both ourselves and also the Indonesian authorities in the last few months.
So we focus very much on ensuring there's adequate security for those who choose to remain.
And my guess is, from what I've heard from the embassy -- and remember, I was there only a couple of days ago -- that the bulk of them will want to stay.
MAXINE McKEW: Minister, if I can go to the operational -- if you like -- the recovery effort in Bali.
And of course you saw that first-hand this week.
As we saw tonight on the news, in spite of the PMs presence, families are still feeling far from reassured that there is an orderly process in place.
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Yes, look, inevitably the families feel terribly distressed and I think we all empathise and sympathise with them enormously here.
Look, let's not get into that sort of a debate.
I know exactly how they would feel.
They want the remains of their loved ones to be brought back to Australia as quickly as possible.
The difficulty is clearly this question, unfortunately, of identification.
And that identification has to be done in a sophisticated and effective way, to put it another way around.
It would be absolutely horrific if, you know, there was a short-cut in the process, remains were brought back and there was an appropriate funeral and then it was found that those remains were the wrong remains and bodies are being dug up and all this sort of thing.
We want to to avoid that.
MAXINE McKEW: Nonetheless, one can understand that of course but I think many of the families are wondering why there was no commanding solitary presence, if you like, a solitary figure, taking charge from day one.
Now, it's taken you five days to get ambassador Ric Smith in there.
Why is that?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: We had a Consul General there from day one.
Actually, to be fair, I think the Consul General has done an extraordinarily good job.
These are massively difficult circumstances.
This is not an easy matter.
MAXINE McKEW: I'm sure the Consular staff did a superb job.
ALEXANDER DOWNER: New York had a Giuliani.
Giuliani was the mayor of New York and the incident occurred in New York -- in his own city and his own country.
This is not our country.
This has happened in Indonesia.
MAXINE McKEW: I appreciate that point but again --
ALEXANDER DOWNER: It's not our jurisdiction.
So, look, seriously, I mean, I don't criticise the Consul General there.
He, of course, has been the senior official.
We've now sent the ambassador down there for a sustained period of time, for, if you like, as long as it takes, to help coordinate the Australian effort and liaise with the Indonesian authorities, which the Consul General has been doing.
I'm just making the point to you -- look, the families are understandably incredibly stressed in this sort of situation.
It is difficult.
Let me just give you a couple of examples.
You have a morgue there which is built to accommodate 10 bodies and it is now dealing with 180 bodies.
We had a hospital, a small hospital, which has had to deal with hundreds of casualties.
In the case of the injured, we have evacuated all of the Australian injured and the foreign injured and indeed some of the Indonesian injured as well.
And the way that medical supplies were brought in, the way that doctors and nurses were made available, the way that the injured were evacuated and brought back to Australia, has been a wonderful thing.
It's almost a miracle how quickly and effectively that's happened in the circumstances.
The big issue now is the repatriation of the bodies.
But I'm awfully sorry about this, but the identification process -- look, it just has to be handled properly.
It can't be done in a haphazard and casual way.
Australian Federal Police and some State police officers are doing the lion's share of that work.
Now we've got forensic experts working on it.
But the point is -- here there are an enormous number of bodies and most of them are burnt beyond recognition and it's particularly difficult in this situation.
MAXINE McKEW: But I say again, whose job is it to have this coordinating plan On their desk right now?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, the Federal Government -- I mean, you're asking me the, the Foreign Minister, if I may say with the greatest of respect I'm responsible for foreign policy.
MAXINE McKEW: But you're on the national security committee of cabinet.
This must be discussed in the wake of September 11, we have been part of war on terror for over a year.
ALEXANDER DOWNER: With the greatest of respect, this has been discussed on many occasions within the Government.
People like the Attorney-General, who's responsible for a substantial component of our emergency services, and in particular the PM, have the overwhelming responsibility for dealing with a circumstance like that in cooperation with the State Premiers and state Emergency Services Ministers and their authorities, and there are very sophisticated plans available to deal -- I don't think there's any suggestion, if I may say so, that in Australia we have no plans to deal with civil emergencies.
MAXINE McKEW: Well, Bob Carr was raising the question today, which is why I put it to you.
Let me move on to the other key question that came up this week, and that is the quality of intelligence.
Richard Armitage told the ABC last night that the US had in his words stunningly explicit information about attacks on their interests as he put it.
That information was shared with us.
So why didn't it mean that an equally explicit red light went on in terms of protecting our own?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: It did.
I mean, if you look at the information that we had from the Americans and the information we had from our own sources and from British sources, and obviously from Indonesian sources, this was information that was shared.
The travel advisories, the embassy bulletins, they -- if you compare the Australian and the American ones, are very similar and I pointed this out very explicitly in a substantial statement to the Parliament yesterday.
There's very, very little difference between them.
But as the Americans have pointed out on many occasions, in not one of their travel advisories or their embassy bulletins was there a reference to Bali, and indeed let us face it, there were quite a number of American embassy officers vacationing in Bali over last weekend.
I mean, I think the Americans and us , the British, other countries, who have these sorts of systems that we have, would have to say to you, if only we had known and had some advanced warning about what happened on 12th October, of course we would have moved heaven and earth to deal with it.
None of us knew about it.
It was as much a shock to the Americans as it was to us.
And I've spoken with the Americans at great length about it.
MAXINE McKEW: You're completely confident about the way your department is interpreting the data that is passed on to it?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: Yes, I think -- I've understandably asked my department and reviewed the material.
I mean, I've been in Indonesia for some days during the week.
I haven't had a tremendous amount of time to devote to this, but I have of course had an analysis done of the material.
I have gone to the trouble of comparing what my department's travel advisories and embassy bulletin said with the American equivalents.
I haven't done with every country, but I have with the Americans.
And I would say that you compare the embassy bulletins and the travel advisories, they're extremely similar.
As a matter of fact, I'm not entirely sure why people for some reason were claiming they were different because actually if you compare them, there is very little difference, if you compare the travel advisories from Indonesia, the American and the Australian travel advisories, and then in addition to that, the embassy bulletins, they could have almost been written in the same office.
They are extremely similar.
MAXINE McKEW: Are you concerned at all in fact that the information flow might start to dry up?
I mean, we do know that the Americans are now getting ready to pull a lot of people out of Jakarta.
If that means some intelligence people as well, is this a great fear that in fact ultimately the Americans may give up on Indonesia and pull out entirely?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, I don't have any fear that the Americans will give up on Indonesia or we or anyone will give up on Indonesia.
There's just no question of that.
I mean, Indonesia is the world's fourth most populace country and an enormously important country, and obviously -- the Americans can speak for the Americans, but we in the Australia and many other countries -- place great store on our various relationships with Indonesia and embassies will continue to operate there, although perhaps with fewer personnel and there will be much greater sense of security.
But no, I mean, nobody's contemplating as you put it giving up on Indonesia.
In fact I would say something else about that, and that is that we're all enormously appreciative of the strength and the resolve that the Indonesian government itself has shown since 12th October to deal with this problem.
MAXINE McKEW: But Minister, let me ask you this -- if by October 10th, 2003, the first anniversary of the Bali bombings, if President Megawati has not shown any resolve, if for instance we have seen no-one appear in a Jakarta court to face mass murder charges, how are Australian/Indonesian relations going to be looking then?: It's an entirely hypothetical question.
Not not for the families involved or much of us?
ALEXANDER DOWNER: You're asking me how I would react or how Australia would react to something a year from now --
MAXINE McKEW: No, how relations will be.
Not how you'll react.
ALEXANDER DOWNER: MAXINE McKEW: All right, Minister, for all of that, thank you very much indeed.
ALEXANDER DOWNER: It's a pleasure.

[hobbes]

duplicate of post by scarper >

The World Health Organisation today issued a new warning against non-essential travel to the entire Western hemisphere following renewed concerns about the spread of Severe Loss of Perspective Syndrome (SLOPS).

Officials are warning travellers not to visit the UK, the US, almost all of Western Europe, and Canada, following further outbreaks of the disease, which has led to mass panic among the media, thousands of ecstatic children being kept out of school by their credulous and moronic parents, and increased profits for DIY stores as the idiot public rush to bulk-buy face masks and boiler suits.

A WHO spokesman said, "You'd be much better off going to somewhere like Thailand or China, because all you've got to worry about there is SARS, and let's face it, you're about as likely to die from that as you are to get kicked to death by a gang of zombie nuns."

The SARS virus has now claimed a staggering 500 lives in only six months, which makes it considerably more deadly than, say, malaria, which only kills around 3000 people every single day. Malaria, however, mainly effects only darkies what speak foreign, whereas SARS has made at least one English person feel a bit iffy for a couple of days, and is therefore considered much more serious.

The spread of SLOPS has now reached pandemic proportions, with many high-level politicians seemingly affected by the disease. The rapid spread of SLOPS has been linked to the end of the war in Iraq and the need for Western leaders to give the public something to worry about. Otherwise, they might start asking uncomfortable questions about domestic issues, and that simply would not do.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

[hobbes]

:cool:

[imaufo]

http://images.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/58a.gif

July 29, 2004

Moralists have long suspected that money is the root of all evil, but now it seems that evil is the root of all money.

Economists in the United States have found that countries with a wide belief in hell are less corrupt and more prosperous than those without.

According to a report into wealth by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, religion proved to be just as reliable a marker as productivity and investment levels. The report, entitled Fear of Hell Might Fire Up The Economy, studied the economies of 35 countries, including the US, Ireland, Japan, India and Turkey.

"In countries where large percentages of the population believe in hell, there seems to be less corruption and a higher standard of living," it said in the bank's quarterly review published this month.

For instance, 71 per cent of the US population believe in hell and the country boasts the world's highest per capita income. Ireland, not far behind the US in terms of income, likewise has a healthy fear of a netherworld with 53 per cent of the population acknowledging hell's existence.

"I'm not surprised," said the Reverend Eileen Lindner, deputy general secretary of the US National Council of Churches, when told of the results. "The expectation that there is a cultural belief in hell or perpetual and eternal punishment for wrongdoing will act as a disincentive to wrongdoing."

The bank's researchers took a two-step approach to linking religion and the economy.

"A belief in hell tends to mean less corruption and less corruption tends to mean a higher per capita income," they wrote.

They then looked at the relationship between corruption and per capita gross domestic product and found "a strong tendency for countries with relatively low levels of corruption to have relatively high levels of per capita GDP".

They said: "Combining these two stories ... suggests that, all else being equal, the more religious a country, the less corruption it will have and the higher its per capita income will be."

However, the president of American Atheists Inc, Ellen Johnson, called the study the latest gimmick from the religious establishment to drum up support for the Government.

"Religious people cannot rely on their theology to promote what they do so they turn to other things," she said.

Reuters

[Seabiscuit]

I thought love of money was the root of all evil not just money

[imaufo]

According to St James you are right Seabikkies.

[imaufo]

September 24, 2004

Peter Hartcher: Campaign update

Australians' worries about terrorist attack far outweigh the risks, writes Peter Hartcher.

Even before the bomb scare on the Virgin Blue jet, even before the bombing outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, even before the distressing possibility that Australians had been taken hostage in Iraq, we were a worried people.

Sixty per cent of us think that Australia is likely - or very likely - to be subject to international terrorist attack some time in the next five years, according to a newly released survey conducted in late 2002 and early last year by Anglicare.

Is this realistic? A terrorist attack is indeed likely, in the opinion of the director of terrorism studies at the Australian National University, Clive Williams. "I'd say it's reasonable - we have gone 18 years since the last attack [the bombing of the Turkish consulate in Melbourne]," says Williams. "We've been pretty lucky."

The odds of death by terrorist attack are extremely low. Since 1900, a total of 22 people have died at the hands of terrorists in Australia. Outside Australia, 140 Australians have died in terrorism attacks since 1900. Still, you are better advised statistically to spend your psychic energy worrying about diet and traffic risks than terrorism. In any case, Williams thinks the most likely source of our next terrorism incident will be a disgruntled local, what he calls a "maverick", like the time in 1977 when Colin Foreman crashed a light aircraft into his workplace in Alice Springs to avenge himself in an office argument, killing himself and four others.

But it's not about risk. It's about how we feel about the risk. Some types of danger frighten us much more than others, regardless of the actual level of risk. In the same year in which about 3000 people died from terrorism in the US, 42,000 died in traffic accidents. Has America declared a War on Traffic Accidents? Of course not. Is this irrational? Yes, but we're human, and irrationality is wired into our brains.

For instance, we learn fear, we even live the fear, just by being told about a danger, according to research by a neuroscientist at New York University, Elizabeth Phelps.

"A lot of our fears are learned through communication - if someone tells you to be afraid of a dog, then the brain responds as if you actually were," she told Psychology Today, after an experiment in which she warned people that they could receive an electric shock when shown a blue square. Shown one, the brain reacted as if the pain were real even when it was acting on fear alone, with no pain.

In other words, we're wide open to being scared, no matter how baseless the fear. And there is a critical consideration during an election campaign - fear can change our political behaviour.

A pair of psychologists, Jeff Greenberg of the University of Arizona and Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College in New York State, were able to get groups of 100 volunteers at a time to either endorse or reject George Bush's Iraq policy depending on what subject they asked them to think about immediately beforehand.

"What we found was staggering," said Greenberg.

Asked to think first about watching TV, people rejected the Bush policy in the next question. Asked to think about September 11 first, they then embraced the Bush approach.

People can be conditioned by fear to change their political perceptions. As Clive Williams points out, in an atmosphere of fear, "clearly fear does favour an incumbent with strong credentials on national security". And as this week's Newspoll showed, Australians still trust Howard over Latham on national security by an overwhelming ratio of 2:1.

So, even though Latham has made a strong fist of national security issues in this campaign, the terrorism-related incidents in the news in the prelude to the vote likely favour Howard.

And Howard this week has sought to outflank Latham, tougher than tough, by striking a bellicose pose on the question of pre-emptive strikes on terrorists. Howard emphasised that if there were terrorists somewhere in the region planning to attack Australia, and if there were no alternative, he would be prepared to use armed force to attack them first. In other words, he would launch a pre-emptive strike on another country in our region to defeat the danger.

Latham, however, has specifically repudiated such an approach. Australia needed to work co-operatively with other countries to defeat terrorism, Latham argued, and pre-emption, he told the Herald, "ultimately will cause more problems than it solves".

Who is right? It's generally true that the most effective way of dealing with terrorists in other lands will be through the governments in whose territory they live. Pre-emptive strikes, unless specifically agreed with the target country's government, will antagonise those regimes and destroy the functional framework for effective action against terrorism - state to state relations.

Even talking about the idea, as Howard first did two years ago, angers the very governments whose cooperation we most need - Indonesia and the Philippines.

And we've just had two important lessons in the limitations of pre-emption. In Iraq, we thought we knew what we were pre-empting, but it turned out we knew next to nothing.

And in Libya, which has just turned over its weapons program for international de-fanging, Muammar Gaddafi opened to the West a complex of 15 sites where it was secretly developing weapons. A well-informed official in the US State Department said that Washington's intelligence establishment was stunned - Western intelligence knew of only two of these sites. Pre-emptive strikes on Libya's weapons programs would have been ineffective and possibly counterproductive.

Pre-emption can work. Witness Israel's strike on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. But the conditions for that success were that the target government was an avowed enemy; that the target was specific and clear; that the intelligence was impeccable; and that the operation could be accomplished entirely from the air and did not involve entanglements on the ground.

This issue is not about to go away. Iran's persistence with its nuclear program, despite the injunctions of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN, is building towards crisis. And pre-emption remains the formal doctrine of the US.

But, in general, Australia is better advised to heed the advice of an earlier generation of American leaders: "Allow the president to invade a neighbouring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion ... and you allow him to make war at pleasure," wrote Abraham Lincoln.

"If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't'."

smh

[hobbes]

one of my favourite threads and i like the SLOPS post a lot.

whipped up by the mental midget i am convinced Americans have become a nation of cowards and posted same on a couple of predominantly american BB's.

on one it got deleted quickly but on another no one argued much -- favourite comment directed at me was "don't hold back".

[Gloryous]

one of my favourite threads and i like the SLOPS post a lot.

whipped up by the mental midget i am convinced Americans have become a nation of cowards and posted same on a couple of predominantly american BB's.

on one it got deleted quickly but on another no one argued much -- favourite comment directed at me was "don't hold back".How do you feel about Canadians in general, not particular? :)

[hobbes]

:)

[imaufo]

My job sounds cool, but I can't really make up my mind


November 21, 2005

I sometimes wonder if life is worth the risk, says Lisa Jane Young.

My business card states I am gainfully employed as a "senior risk and intelligence analyst". Strangers at dinner parties suspect I'm a spy, and for my personal entertainment I tend not to dissuade them very much.

In reality though, I have a desk job that amounts to being a professional sceptic, paid to cast a wary and somewhat squinty eye over crime data and risk documents that cross my desk. While I quite enjoy my job, the dinner party people don't understand that my impossibly cool business card shrouds a crippling personal issue: as an analyst, it's impossible to shop like normal people.

The other day I went to the supermarket for a toothbrush. While one might expect the purchase of toiletry would not pose a huge hurdle for a 32 year-old professional with postgraduate qualifications, I found myself paralysed with anxiety in aisle six.

Did the potential risk of choking on my brush suggest a risk mitigation strategy in the form of an extra grippy brush handle? Had I choked on a toothbrush in the past 30 years, did I know anyone who had, and could this help me rate the likelihood of choking on a scale of 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (almost certain)? If I bought a brush without indicator bristles, how would I know when I needed a new one? The consequence of using an old brush was at least rated as being less significant than the consequence of choking, making the grippy handle kind of important. Were there things on my tongue that needed scraping off, and if so, what were they and how long had they been there? Ewww.

It was fully 15 minutes of weighing the relative opportunities (reduced probability of plaque, reduced probability of Swiss cheese teeth, increased chances of having nice-smelling breath) with the relative risks (danger of choking, tongue scraping-related issues, presence versus absence of indicator bristles) before I could effectively establish the maximum value proposition given the set choice matrix before me in aisle six. That is, buy a toothbrush.

So, mascara. How can you have something in "very black"? Once something is black, by definition it's already black and it can't get any blacker, because if that were possible, it wasn't in fact black you started with. The initial estimation of "blackness" would have rated poorly on our industry-standard Admiralty scale for information evaluation. I suspect that the copywriter - or "community intelligence source" as we call them at the office - would probably not be used a second time.

And how can you make eyelashes 20 per cent longer - are they really longer or is it just an optical illusion? In any case, who measures them and how? Cosmetic calipers? If they're curly lashes, do they have to be removed and ironed for accurate measuring? And if there are people measuring eyelash length, why haven't I met any of them at parties?

But you'll have to excuse me, I'm running late for a dinner party full of strangers who think I'm a spy because the grocery shopping took five hours.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/heckler/my-job-sounds-cool-but-i-cant-really-make-up-my-mind/2005/11/20/1132421542862.html

[hobbes]

International Herald Tribune

Panic is the real danger

Marc Siegel The Boston Globe FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2006 NEW YORK

The bird flu expert Robert Webster told ABC News this week that there were "about even odds at this time for the virus to learn how to transmit human to human," and "society just can't accept the idea that 50 percent of the population could die... I'm sorry if I'm making people a little frightened, but I feel it's my role."

I disagree. As one of the top flu experts in the world, Webster's role is to track influenza in the test tube, not to make sweeping speculations that are not based on science and do far more harm than good.

By his estimate, we should be destroying every bird in the world right now before we all perish in a pool of pathogens.

Webster's statement is the latest Hitchcockian pronouncement about H5N1 bird flu, a virus that is deadly in birds. But humans are different. We are protected by a species barrier, and serological surveys conducted in 1997 in Hong Kong and since have detected antibodies in thousands of humans who never got sick, showing that bird flu isn't as deadly to the few who come in contact with it as has been reported.

In fact, the growing immunity to H5N1 worldwide may lessen the outbreak in humans even if the dreaded mutation does occur. As time passes, the chances of this mutation appear less rather than more likely. (The Spanish flu, by comparison, mutated before killing a lot of birds.)

If H5N1 takes hold in pigs and exchanges genetic material with another flu virus, the result is likely to be far less deadly.

The swine flu fiasco of 1976 is an example of the damage that can be done from fear of a mutated virus that can theoretically affect us. More than 1,000 cases of paralysis occurred from a rushed vaccine given to more than 40 million people in response to a pandemic that never came.

Why provoke the public to see a potential pandemic in end-of-the-world terms? A pandemic simply means people in several areas having a disease at the same time - but it may be hundreds rather than millions.

The last flu pandemic, in 1968, killed 33,800 Americans, which is flu's toll in an average year. We don't need to panic in advance for that kind of pandemic.

Cooking poultry kills any flu 100 percent of the time, yet the fear of H5N1 bird flu is already so out of control in Europe that 46 countries have banned French poultry exports after a single turkey was found to be infected. France, fourth in the world in poultry exports, is already hemorrhaging more than $40 million a month.

Imagine what would happen if a bird in the United States gets H5N1 bird flu. At the rate we are going, the fear of birds will be so great that our own poultry industry, number one in the world, is likely to be in shambles.

We already have this problem with mad cow disease, where a single sick cow that is not even in the food chain makes people nervous, despite the fact that it is almost impossible to get mad cow disease from eating beef.

Flu is worthy of our concern. But panic can be far more virulent and costly than the bird flu itself.

(Dr. Marc Siegel, associate professor of medicine at New York University School of Medicine, is author of "False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear." This article first appeared in The Boston Globe)

[imaufo]

According to this site, Deep Impact will win the arc. He must as it is in the bible code. As with Darren Beadman, just get on...you cant beat God.

Deep Impact, I will quantify. Who destroyed?

Anyway according to this site the end of the world is going to happen today. be prepared and dont say you werent warned. :eek: :confused:


http://www.savelivesinmay.com/slimdocs/art-Apocalypse-on-25-MAI-2006-en.htm

"I have received information psychically, which is corroborated by scientific data, according to which on May 25, 2006 a giant tsunami will occur in the Atlantic Ocean, brought about by the impact of a comet fragment which will provoke the eruption of under-sea volcanoes.

Waves up to 200 m high will reach coastlines located above and below the Tropic of Cancer. However, all of the countries bordering the Atlantic will be affected to greater or lesser destructive and deadly levels.

This site is dedicated to life, to civic responsibility and to information. There is still time to save lives. Thanks for participating in the world-wide alert!" -- Eric Julien :eek: :confused: :eek: