On 11/25/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, using this logic, because death from a bombing on an air craft > is a > statistically super-unlikely event, you would no doubt recommend > removing *all* metal detectors and screeenings from airports, because > the costs of these measures do not outweight the costs of the deaths > prevented..... Bag screening is in place for a number of reasons, as are metal detectors. An overall deterrent to people (not just terrorists) bringing dangerous items on planes is a good thing for everyone, and it gives the *impression* that we're totally safe. But you know that.
Hardly the point... the idea that we remove security measures from airports because hijacking is rare is as stupid as stopping, polio vaccinations because polio is rare. It'll stop being rare. What matters is the likelihood of the event *after* the change takes place, not before. Security has made flying safer than it was back when hijackings were all too common. Whether or not the increased measures since 9/11 have made a difference is fairly hard to know. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
