Deaths from int. terrorism compared with road crash deaths

Re: Deaths from int. terrorism compared with road crash deat


AP Wire
Washington, D.C.
In an effort to head off the massive death toll caused by the International Highway Conspiracy or In'Hico, President Bush today announced that select units of the 82nd Airborne and the 101st Air Assault Divisions will be invading the United States Interstate System and the German Autobahn later today.

The President said that additional road systems will be added to the newly dubbed the 'Axels of Asphalt'. Air strikes on selected accident sites will be announced soon!

does this advocate for a global war on cars?

I'm not sure the comparison serves any purpose here Walter.

I just think this study only advocates what it says:

How about "spending umpteen billion dollars on 'homeland security' is stupid?"

I expect this report doesn't even include the burden associated with injuries.

The argument to fight terrorism -

Just think of all the deaths that could occur if we didn't fight terrorism. Thousands if not tens of thousands if a terrorist managed to set off nuclear device.

----------------------------------
The rebuttal to have traffic safety -

Think of all the deaths if we allowed SUVs that could carry thousands without any traffic control or safety devices.

----------------------------------------
The only logical conclusion. Lets do both within reason.

Here's an extreme opinion:
We can be certain that traffic deaths and injuries will continue to occur as long as automobiles are in use. Despite this certainty, most people remain content to, at the most, work to make cars safer to some degree. I think that if there is a product sold that continually contributes to killing tens of thousands each year in the U.S., alone, it probably should be taken off the market. I realize that if done overnight this would result in many more deaths. But it seems like auto sales go up each year. It just seems crazy.

i posted this entry a few days ago under the "avian flu" thread . if you are concerned about the threat from terrorism or automobiles, you might want to read what "newsweek" magazine has to say. pls look for the link in the "avian flu" thread if you want the link; i've posted the article below.
a/t newsweek - a fairly reliable magazine, i'd say - the world should pay a little more attention - and spend a great deal more money - trying to prevent a pandemic than on anything else.

what do you think ? fearmongering ? genuine worry, or what ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is the title/link of a newsweek article (oct 31, 2005 issue , picked up at library yesterday).
this article and another in the same issue, titled "the fight against the flu" , do not paint a pretty picture. i've had trouble getting a direct link to the article, perhaps you can find the back-issue.
the article claims that the world and the united states are completely unprepared to deal with a flu-pandemic. scientists claim it is lack of money that's the biggest problem right now

some bits from the articles :
-this year's u.s. funding for the project = $119 million; funding for ballistic missile defense = over $10 billion; r&d spending for new fighter $4.5 billion:
-WHO had "five" scientists working on project, now "up to twelve" ! WHO lives hand-to-mouth and simply does not have the resources to deal with this;
-scientists suggest a "manhattan project" approach is neede to deal with it;
-some way has to be found to compensate poor farmers in underdeveloped nations to participate in reporting and cuullig of fowl.- again MONEY;
-quote from richard falkenrath, until recently, deputy homeland security adviser : " a flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the united states face today. it's a bigger threat than terrorism ... if this would happen, the government would mostly be a bystander, not a manager" ;
-a crude nuclear device would probably kill hundreds of thousands; a flu pandemic ? - it could easily kill several million of people.

if you can lay your hands on that issue of newsweek, i suggest you read it. it's not a "scare mongering" article but a well-documented science report. hbg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSWEEK COVER: The Bird Flu


Avian Flu Pandemic is 'The Single Greatest Risk to Our World Today,' says
Leading Epidemiologist; Even If You Survive, 'What Happens to You When the
World Economy Shuts Down?'

Secretary of Health and Human Services on U.S. Preparedness: 'There Have Been
Many Who Foresaw This and Urged Our Country to Begin Preparations Sooner ...
and It Would Have Better If We Had Done So'

World Health Organization Expert: We Have a 20- to 21-Day Window to Control
Local Outbreak Before Widespread Infection Occurs

NEW YORK, Oct. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Health and Human Services Secretary Mike
Leavitt tells Newsweek that the United States is not as prepared for an
outbreak of the avian flu as we could -- or should -- be. "There have been
many who foresaw this and urged the country to begin preparations sooner," he
says in the October 31 issue (on newsstands Monday, October 24), "and it would
have been better if we had done so."
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20051023/NYSU004 )
Through innumerable generations and hundreds of mutations, the H5N1
variant of avian flu maintained its extraordinary lethality, without yet
evolving the ability to be transmitted directly between people. When and if
that changes, it could be the trigger for a global pandemic that, in a worst-
case extrapolation from the toll of the 1918 Spanish flu, could kill 150
million people -- 2.5 percent of the world's population -- in a matter of
months, reports Senior Editor Jerry Adler. Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm of
the University of Minnesota calls that scenario "the single greatest risk to
our world today." Governments -- indeed, civilizations -- have collapsed from
less; even if you survive, Osterholm asks, "what happens to you when the
global economy shuts down?"
But models of earlier pandemics may not tell the whole story. Dr. Margaret
Chan, head of pandemic-flu preparedness for the World Health Organization,
notes that "in history no human intervention has managed to stop a pandemic
once it starts." But, she adds, "this is the first time we've been able to see
a pandemic unfold before our very eyes." There is a window of "20 to 21 days"
in which a local outbreak could be controlled before it gets loose, Chan
believes. The key factors that will determine success are surveillance, the
authority to impose and enforce a quarantine, the availability of vaccines and
antiviral drugs, and the state of readiness in hospitals -- and in almost all
of these, the world has a long way to go.
In the United States, individual states have laws to enforce quarantines,
of course, but CDC officials admit that some are inadequate or have expired,
and they're working urgently, if quietly, to bring them into compliance with
the agency's model code. Other countries' situations are even more worrisome;
in Indonesia, where H5N1 has been found, the Army is by far the only
institution capable of enforcing a quarantine, but a military spokesman told
Newsweek that "bird flu is not within the purview of the armed forces. Talk to
the Ministry of Health."
Antiviral drugs are an important part of the WHO's plan to combat avian
flu. There are only two, Tamiflu and Relenza, and they both work in the same
way, by interrupting the virus's ability to replicate within the body. Two
weeks ago, Leavitt told reporters that the United States had stockpiled 2.3
million courses of Tamiflu and that two million more would be on hand within
two days. That would still be far short of the WHO recommendation, which
suggests nations stockpile enough to cover 10 percent of their population. At
the end of last week, though, CDC officials put the national reserve at 2.3
million courses, still, with the additional two million courses now expected
by the end of November.
Perhaps coincidentally, CDC director Julie Gerberding took pains to
downplay the usefulness of Tamiflu. "I think it's a complete misdirection of
energy to be so focused on the issue of stockpiling," she said. "There is no
evidence that it will make a difference if we are hit with a pandemic."