[plug] [OT] Goodbye, Columbia

[Peter Weatherall]

Simon Scott wrote:

>On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 03:47, shayne oneill wrote:
>
>  
>
>>This is a disaster.
>>    
>>
>
>No it isnt.
>
>Its an unfortunate accident. The seven people on board knew the risks. NASA 
>know the risks. 
>
>In fact, the risks are pretty low. Look at what NASA achieve and how few 
>accidents theyve had. I wonder how their safety record matches up against 
>most of the worlds airlines (which by comparison is a jog down the the local 
>deli).
>
>An airliner plowing into the side of the world trade center is a disaster. 
>
>I feel sorry for the 3 guys stuck up on the ISS. Maybe theyll have to hitch a 
>ride back with the Russians. Egads.
>
>
>
>  
>
the relevant statistic would be passengers * kilometres/fatalitiess and 
on that basis it is safer to fly on an airline than the shuttle .Flying 
on the shuttle is probably equivalent to driving in your car ( the most 
dangerous thing we do , on average ) . As usaul the perceived risk 
differs wildly from the actual risk . Unnatural activities are perceived 
to have a much higher risk .
7 dead = 1 day in Palestine
Having said that I salute the barave souls who flew in it .