Slashdot Mirror

It's not a new thing. Remember the Red Scare? Remember the Internment Camps and Witch Hunts? It's the ancient fear of the unknown, of other tribes to be precise.

Fear is instinctual in humans, granted to us through millions of years of evolution. It exists, and need only be cultivated into hysteria to cloud minds. The fear comes from within, that's what makes it powerful. It should be considered a crime to wield fear against the ignorant masses. Those stoking the fear are fearmongers, or scaremongers -- The word looks familiar because these are the same as warmongers. As the Chomsky showed us decades ago, fear and filters are used to manufacture consent.

For what ends? Oh, I think we know that too, very well indeed.

The question is wrong. We know where the fear comes from. The more apt question is why we are more scared of terrorists than fast cars and fast food, which combined claim over four hundred 9/11 scale attacks in victims every year? The answer isn't no one is brave. The answer is no one is educated. It's been over a decade. That's four thousand 9/11 scale attacks in victims... Will you still drive and occasionally eat junk food? Yes? Then how can anyone justify the spending to prevent such a minuscule threat to life in terrorism at such a great cost? It's because they're ignorant.

A small child turns on the light to reveal what the dark has kept from them, and is no longer afraid. Without ignorance there can be no fear. The scale of the threat is never given context, so it seem more ominous than it is; When in reality its not that big of a deal. Terrible, yes, but so are car accidents and heart attacks, yet we wouldn't agree to give up our Freedoms, Privacy or our French Fries to prevent them.

The warmongers who want to line their pockets with trillions we could be spending to actually protect and benefit us at home claim Terroists are nothing to sneeze at, but if you set a 9/11 scale attack next to the Flu, you'll notice there are six times more dead Americans every year from the Flu. Fire the liars. Fight fear with facts.

No it isn't. You may have noticed how people have become less healthy as they removed saturated fats from their diet. You may however missed the vast body of evidence that has replaced the crappy epidemiological evidence that wrongly implicated saturated fats in the 70s.

Really. Let's see a few more recent studies, then.

No. This is the thoroughly debunked consensus. It is not longer consensus.

Well then, let's see what major medical and health associations say, then:

• The American Heart Association: (1)
• The Center for Disease Control: (1)
• The European Food Safety Authority: (1)
• The World Health Organization: (1) (2)

It's ketogenic. The metabolic pathways that make this true are fully understood.

Okay, cool beans. Feel free to explain the pathways and why more ketones is a good thing.

Most years that's so, but not always. A few years ago the most-common influenza DID cause major gastrointestinal distress, and it was indeed flu, one of the HxNx viruses.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/symptoms.htm
lists vomiting and diarrhea as possible symptoms.

This is a very selfish view. Sure, you probably won't be harmed if you don't vaccinate against chicken pox, but only because everybody else does. We already do have a high degree of herd immunity and this is the only reason for the very low risk here. Before widespread vaccination we had 4 million cases each year, with 100..150 dead in the USA. In other words, more than half the population was affected. So this is the deal: either vaccinate, or take a 50% risk of being knocked out for a week, maybe hospitalized or even dead.

What are the odds of an adult in the modern world not ever having had the flu? 10%? Between 5-20% of the US population is infected every year: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/disease.htm

If he's one of those Slashdot permanent basement dwellers he's doesn't need vaccines anyway if he takes certain precautions with his food and drink. ;)

I agree! Not only that, the number one killer is accidents. Typical /. all wrong all the time.

Not even remotely close. Typical AC. Just typing "causes of death in us" in google would've got this answer in the number one slot.

I said WWI, not WW2.

For an example of something where the two sides had something close you need only look at WWI.

The death toll of WWI was around 37,000,000 - which sounds a lot like 'tens of millions'. The death toll of the Spanish flu was about 50 million (with high estimates of 100 million), which also sounds a lot like 'tens of millions'.

Foreign aid of the USA per capita is more or less the same as other civilized nations and far behind scandinavian nations.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics, and what you did right there is a perfect example. My statement is factual and you are trying to manipulate statistics in such a way to take credit away from where it is due. Your statement is disingenuous when the US gives tens of Billions of dollars more in Foreign aid per year, every single year.

The US army was crippled in Vietnam by a policy of not bombing near civilian centers which is why the North built as much of their military strength their as they could. They knew the US wouldn't touch anything near the cities and fully exploited the policy. The inability to target anything near a city was directly inspirational for the development of GPS guided munitions that are in use today.

Next time you might want to pause and read what I actually wrote and take a moment to look for some citations before responding. Just like with the other guy, remove the hyberbole and it's much easier to take you seriously. For the meanwhile I'd like to suggest you spend a little time in the history section of your local library before trying to argue history next time.

I've got news for you, friend. Information has never harmed a single soul. It takes action to do that. Information doesn't kill people, people do. The NSA does not preempt terrorist threats, and even if they did, the cost to the rest of our lives is too much. They've inundated themselves with data and can't make sense of any of it until after the actions have been performed. Besides, folks could just send post cards with stenographic messages on them, or any other low-tech solution. Tor and darknets wouldn't need to exist if we didn't feel insecure.

More folks die of heart disease every year than over fifty 9/11's... 2,996 died in 9/11. 597,689. Two Hundred Times More, Every Year! If the NSA wanted to protect us they'd be making tastier health food. Over six times more Americans take their own lives every year than the Terrorists did in their worst attack against us. The threat is fucking pathetic, and those spreading the fear narrative should be fired. Humans have deep psychological, evolutionarily encoded, desires to protect our lives and those of women and children even more. This is psychological warfare.

I know it sounds cold hearted, but we can put a price on a human life. We can look at the lifespan and the benefit to society that life may contribute, and quantify a life to some degree. This is not to dehumanize people, but to put into perspective the ethics of fearmongering. A few thousand died at the hands of terrorists, but now hundreds of millions suffer every day at their loss of privacy. The aggregate suffering is far greater than that of the worst tortures to the few. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. IMO, It's better not to live in fear of your government for your entire life than to say, lose a limb. I would give up my left leg to end this NSA spying on me, and all Americans. What I really fear that they are turning more people against us every day!

Privacy is worth something. We need private space to be fully human, and as our lives deal more and more online that privacy needs to be extended online as well. Folks wouldn't be encrypting shit if they felt they could trust the networks.

The NSA is wounding us deeply. Their actions make them seem like the other secret police we fought against. We didn't need such a police state since we were brave and good people. Soldiers took up the call to fight for our nation because we had honor. The NSA is stripping away our honor. Many would not fight for us because of it. The NSA is a Threat to National Security. These fearmongers are injecting poison into the veins of our country. They will not ever decrease the dosage, and if we let them continue, they will increase it and destroy our great nation from the inside out.

Think for a second about the lengths we've got to because of the pathetic terrorist attacks. Now, what if the NSA really did try to protect us from real harms we face? The NSA would monitor everything you ate and tax you if you more if you ate "unhealthy" food, whatever they deem that to be. The NSA would be monitoring every vehicle location and remotely shutting folks down cars. They'd be preemptively sending cops into your home to make sure your bad-day didn't turn into a suicide.

We have secret ballots for a reason. The invasion of privacy must end.

In a nutshell: If you're well-prepared for the zombie apocalypse, odds are good that you're also well-prepared for any real disaster, so it's a nice target.

The director of the CDC has said as much: "If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack."

Suspiciously absent from the list of supplies to have on hand, however, is a ruggedized pickup truck. Medical supplies, duct tape, plastic tarps, potable water, and dry food rations were all highly valued, as was a robust preparedness plan by the federal and local governments, with a focus on organization and communication.

In fact, the truck weighs in as a convenience. A very heavy one at a time when mobility would be at a premium. In an urban area, a bicycle would achieve many of the requirements of a preparedness plan; It can provide travel of over 100 miles in a day, requires no gasoline, fuel, or electricity, and is very easy to repair. It also won't draw as much attention as a ruggedized anti-zombie truck... which let's be honest: If you have a gun, who are you going after... the bicyclist, or the guy with a truck and a lock safe containing untold goodies?

If you ask me... the truck's a liability. Lastly, what's the first rule of Zombie world? CARDIO. Your physical health is your single greatest asset... it tops the list I put in earlier by a wide margin. If you're too fat to get to the locations of any of those emergency distribution centers, you're pretty much already dead. So I guess then it's a good thing you bought a truck and a gun. Better hope you brought a really big gas tank too, because when that runs out, you are totally screwed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be over here on my bike, riding around eating twinkies, because the twinkie supply will probably outlast the gas supply (now that they've started making them again), and I conveniently brought an engine which is estimated to last another 60 years without any major maintenance that can run on them...

This is the kind of crap that the KGB and the Stasi did. During the Cold War we rightly considered the United States superior because it didn't do that.

Indeed. Now, consider you fought for your country because of said superiority. Consider you took on the mantle of duty because you believed your country wasn't like the oppressive KGB and Stasi. Wouldn't it bring into question what you unquestionably fought for? Wouldn't it undermine the very honor bestowed upon you? Wouldn't it cheapen the sacrifice of any who fought "for our freedom" and were wounded or killed?

The NSA is dangerously harmful to the USA. It must be rooted out because it weakens us far more than it could ever hope to strengthen us. Trust in your neighbor and fellow man has been under attack by these intelligence agencies since the 50's, to better foist upon us their tools of oppression by way of fear-mongering. The common man is afraid to say things aloud or online, and thinks twice before exercising their "freedoms". If the threat is so great as to grant them such powers, then why isn't their message: Better arm yourselves to the teeth because your fellow man is dangerous. That isn't their message, that would be ridiculous and also empower citizens to defend themselves...

Is this surveillance state and national fear worth fighting for? Is that worth "freeing" another people so they may be subject to the same oppression after as before we have fought to free them? It takes bravery to fight against apparently overwhelming odds, and soldiers do this not because they will win, but because they believe in the ideals of our nation, core among them is freedom -- They do what they think is ultimately right and trust their government to direct them in the goal of honor; Even if the foot soldier's actions seem dishonorable they trust their government to have a clearer view of the big picture. Now we glimpse the big picture painted in secret, and what is revealed looks exactly like what we've been fighting against. This must not stand.

It is a disgusting thought to entertain, but there could be reasons such internal national conflict is desired by the elitists who will most certainly escape any conflict unscathed...

If it takes only bravery to fight against such systematic oppression making our land less free then how could it ever stand in the home of the brave? We must end paranoia of our fellow citizen's actions -- For we are great enough to thwart any who threaten us on our soil. We have the upper hand, we are so many and the terrorists so few that automobiles or fast food alone harms us more in a year than than they ever have in all of history. We are so great that we need not even be armed or even paranoid against the terrorists, even foiling their plots mid-air with bare hands once they've been discovered. Those that attack our citizens are pathetically feeble against us.

What of the power of the citizen in relation to our own government? In this regard the government has the upper hand. We trust them to have awesome weapons and machines of war far greater than we the people could have ever dreamed of when those words were first penned. Thus, the paranoia and fear of our government's actions against us must be ended, not by ignorance, but by ensuring there is nothing to be paranoid about. We trust our soldiers to fight for us, not against us because they will be ultimately accountable for their actions; If they fight against us then we would not have them as soldiers. Likewise, if their actions show they are against us then we must not trust our intelligence agencies to spy for us. They have betrayed our trust, and we must hold them accountable. Otherwise our honorable fight for nothing, we have no honor to bestow, and we are servants to bullies instead.

Problem is prescription drugs aren't safe. More people OD on prescription drugs than street drugs, or course there's probably more opioid prescription drug users than street drug users but it's still a major issue.

I'm not sure I like the DEA doing this but prescription drug abuse is definitely a legitimate problem.

RE:
What I don't like about cops is that they prefer to enforce laws that are easy to enforce. They happily issue lots of traffic tickets, while drug dealers, rapists, murderers, burglars, muggers, etc. are not getting caught.

Enforcement isn't about what's easy or hard so much as it's about the cost to society of the proscribed activity.
Car crashes are a big deal because the costs are large. The deaths from accidents far exceeds all the things you mention, and almost all car crashes happen because someone was breaking some law while driving.
Although texting while driving hasn't caused near the carnage that drunk driving has, it's becoming more and more of a problem. People are getting killed and maimed due to an activity (texting while driving) that offers little benefit to society.
Here's some numbers:
http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/statecosts/index.html
http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/Distracted_Driving/
and there's more like this one:
http://www.rmiia.org/auto/traffic_safety/Cost_of_crashes.asp

RE:
What I don't like about cops is that they prefer to enforce laws that are easy to enforce. They happily issue lots of traffic tickets, while drug dealers, rapists, murderers, burglars, muggers, etc. are not getting caught.

Enforcement isn't about what's easy or hard so much as it's about the cost to society of the proscribed activity.
Car crashes are a big deal because the costs are large. The deaths from accidents far exceeds all the things you mention, and almost all car crashes happen because someone was breaking some law while driving.
Although texting while driving hasn't caused near the carnage that drunk driving has, it's becoming more and more of a problem. People are getting killed and maimed due to an activity (texting while driving) that offers little benefit to society.
Here's some numbers:
http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/statecosts/index.html
http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/Distracted_Driving/
and there's more like this one:
http://www.rmiia.org/auto/traffic_safety/Cost_of_crashes.asp

None of those issues make the top 15 causes of death, whereas accidents are #5.

It's not entirely clear from the abstract, so just for some background (of what I assume is behind the paywall) the main problem with severe flu is cytokine storms. Basically, your immune system can get into a positive feedback loop trying to kill the virus and wind up killing most of the body's cells instead. In the Pandemic Flu of 1918, a great number of the dead were the healthiest ones with great immune systems.

So I'm assuming what's going on here is that they've isolated the parts of the immune system that actually kill the flu, and have a plan to prime them for action. That would be super-awesome. The annual flu deaths, just in the US is in the 3000-49000 per year range. If you have to use government terms, that's at least a 9/11 every year, and if you have to spend a trillion dollars on something, this would be a much better target.

I think you might live in a world of very large adults or very small children in fact.

Given the extrapolation given was for height, height is what is being talked about. And the average two year old in the US is a little over half the height of the average 18 year old (here's one reference: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf).

If you mean weight, then sure, but then the extrapolation makes no sense.

You've watched too many zombie movies. You don't just napalm sick people. End of story.

Really, the movie Outbreak didn't have any zombies. If you have a rioting population that is actively resisting quarantine, you don't move your troops in close-range because they can damage the protective suits. Also, the United States is special in that a significant fraction of the population has guns. Are you really going to put your troops in the line of fire trying to save people by separating and isolating them for blood samples, etc., when they're shooting at you?

Nope. Napalm, move on. If we're talking about a highly contagious disease, this is exactly what has to happen -- you can't save everyone. This is just military reality... sometimes you have to sacrifice a few people to save a lot more. And zombies has nothing to do with it, though if you'd like, the CDC did outline their response to a zombie outbreak. As they note, "if you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack."

So laugh all you want; Though zombies are fictional, the response wouldn't be different from an actual public health crisis, as the CDC pointed out when they created some preparedness posters with zombies on them.

CDC has you covered - Zombie Preparedness

Landing Page - http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies_novella.htm

The Zombie Comic Novella - http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies/

CDC has you covered - Zombie Preparedness

Landing Page - http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies_novella.htm

The Zombie Comic Novella - http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies/

Really ??

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/

Rabies is a preventable viral disease of mammals most often transmitted through the bite of a rabid animal. The vast majority of rabies cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) each year occur in wild animals like raccoons, skunks, bats, and foxes.

The rabies virus infects the central nervous system, ultimately causing disease in the brain and death. The early symptoms of rabies in people are similar to that of many other illnesses, including fever, headache, and general weakness or discomfort. As the disease progresses, more specific symptoms appear and may include insomnia, anxiety, confusion, slight or partial paralysis, excitation, hallucinations, agitation, hypersalivation (increase in saliva), difficulty swallowing, and hydrophobia (fear of water). Death usually occurs within days of the onset of these symptoms.

Umm, no. The 1918 pandemic killed 10-20% of the people infected.

The CDC just called, something about you being wrong. 2.5-5% is not "10-20%". But if you can find a better authority than the Center for Disease Control, I'm sure everyone here would love to hear it. Or is it only true if it's in Wikipedia?

For reference, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 is estimated to have killed anywhere from 3 to 6 percent of world population. It presumably would have been worse in more densly populated areas.

You know there's wrong, then there's Wikipedia wrong. First, let's get a real authority in the mix. 2.5--5% is the number you're looking for; 3% is probably closest to accurate. And no, it wasn't worse in "more [densely] populated areas". It was better. People in urban areas are regularly exposed to more pathogens, which means their immune system is better equipped to handle a new strain or mutation of something previously exposed to than an isolated person would be. The average cold today would kill someone from the 1950s like it was the black death. Isolation does not work in your favor prior to a pandemic; it just makes you more vulnerable.

However, I don't think you could seriously argue that 2% is too high for a worst-case scenario. It might be too low.

2%, the number quoted by the DoD, is actually quite high. The average flu outbreak claims less than a 0.1% fatality rate. It's a good number to target, and if you read carefully, you'll note the plan has some flexibility to account for a higher rate than this. The first stages of the plan, mobilization, assumes a far worse potential than this, and so there's a lot of "standby" resource activation, because the logistics of calling up so many people incurs considerable delay (from a miltary standpoint) .. so it's better to activate resources you later don't need than come up short. While that's happening, scientists are focusing on pinning down pathology, so when it comes time to deploy into the field, they know how bad it's going to be. It is likely these numbers wouldn't be immediately available to the public... or would be understated.

If it's good enough for the CDC (who deal with things like flu pandemics), it's good enough for us:
http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse/

Ugh, I was giving the GP a chance to defend his claims especially since it was unclear to me what the rate of deaths by firearms was 'far far higher' than.

And anyone can use the CDC's top 10 website, but given that the GP had apparently done the research he likely had it to hand which was why I politely asked.

You ascribe 'balls' to the GP while you make presumptive comments and, apparently, are blind to the irony of your post. My post was a single sentence question; how you managed to project entitlement to it is beyond me.

In short, it's all up to how you define 'school-aged' but at the end of the day, most aged 1-19 die from unintentional injuries like motor vehicle accidents, drownings, and poisonings. Then you have a significant number dying of inherited disorders, and then you have homicides (in the 15-19 group) rising up with firearms being the primary thing those people are killed with. Then you also have suicides being also primarily committed by firearm and you can reasonably come to his conclusion of firearms being the second most likely thing someone from 15-19 is to die from. I personally consider 'school-aged' to be through high school so the numbers may be different but the ranking is likely similar.

What's fascinating to me is that it is generally illegal to purchase a firearm as a minor, possibly implying that the majority of firearm homicides are committed by criminals prior to their commission of homicide.

Better call an ambulance and get the help to you... safer and quicker.

Maybe. In the USA, first off, ambulances are not free, and, second, they may not be close. If someone out in the country lives an hour from the nearest ambulance, they might not want to wait and they would certainly dispute the "quicker" part.

Ambulances also have a substantially higher rate of accidents and fatalities than the average driver, so they might dispute the "safer" part as well.

While I agree that the product was not defective, and that banning was out of proportion to the scale of the problem, there was a potential for harm if they were given to children (not that they were marketed in that way). There have been a number of incidents in the past with other magnetic toys.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

P.18 (Table 2.1) Previous 12 months
1.1% of females, or 1 270 000, were victims of "rape".
5.6% of females were victims of "other sexual violence".

P.19 (Table 2.2) Previous 12 months
1.1% of males, or 1 267 000, were "forced to penetrate".
5.3% of males were victims of "other sexual violence".

Note the second statistic doesn't include male victims who were penetrated (or, as usual, any prison rape) since the CDC used a "forced to penetrate" catagory to separate it from "rape" which they only defined as being penetrated. Definitions are on page 17.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

I'm glad that I'm not a parent that has to decide to get my child vaccinated. The problem as I see it is that we have been told that we should be responsible in watching our health and that we are in charge of it and that parents are in charge of their childs health. So when even the goverment says that there is a chance that a child who gets vaccintated for measles "MMR vaccine side-effects" & MMRV side-effects can get anything from a fever, to Deafness, or Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness, Permanent brain damage one wonders could my child be the one who the bad things will happen to.

I kind of think of it this way.

Think of it this way, in physical terms of what happens. You sit the kid in a chair and a kid that doesn't get any problems gets a lolly pop, the one who has a reaction gets something like this.

1 in 6 get a slap in the face (Fever), 1 in 20 gets a purple nurple (mild rash). 1 in 3,000 get the chair pulled out from under them as they sit down (Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever).

and then you have the big ones that they don't even put up on the website as to how often they happen (except to say very rare) Deafness, Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness and of course the big one Permanent brain damage.

Is the parent bad for letting the child even sit in the chair?

So what is a parent to do? Your a bad parent if you hurt your child but your a bad parent if you don't play roulette with your kid getting something simple and something very dangerous that will follow them for the rest of their life. Remember they have to take care of that child not us. Oh, btw, I'm vaccinated and as a consenting adult I will get vaccinated as needed because in my mind the risks are more than the chance but the issue isn't with me it's with the parents of the kids who don't want to get vaccintated.

It's a tough decision and glad that I don't have to make it. The argument about "the greater good" would only count if everyone pays for everyone else and take care of everyone else. Oh wait forget everything, get the kid vaccinated!

Not everybody who got measles is still here. It's been thinning the herd for thousands of years. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6020a7.htm from which I quote here: "Of the 118 cases, 47 (40%) resulted in hospitalization. Nine patients had pneumonia, but none had encephalitis and none died." None dying is not all that typical. Here's what the WHO has to say: " Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year. "It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 158 000 people died from measles in 2011 – mostly children under the age of five." -- http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ Among other kinds of permanent damage, measles causes blindness in some patients. It is not OK to get measles. It's life and long-term health threatening.

Whoa, not that AC, but chill. I took him to mean that US customs or border enforcement or some such should have been keeping an eye out, which is something that I would have assumed as well. Granted, there's a lot of reasons he could pass through and it wouldn't be noticed, but I'd think there's some protection.

Apparently measles is not strictly on the list, if I'm reading this right.

http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

I suppose when there's a powerful interest in suppressing videos and enough material to convince the public it's something they need to be afraid of. I doubt it will happen. About nine people a day die as a result of cell phones and driving, which is about nine more people a day than die from pot, yet we don't have a "war on cell phones." It's because the cell phone companies beat back the "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!" response, and no one really stands to make a ton of money from banning cell phones.

I don't think anyone stands to gain a bunch of money from banning videos. I think it's safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/250010691/Uranium-mining-left-a-legacy-of-death.html?pg=all

http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/1992/11000/Navajo_Birth_Outcomes_in_the_Shiprock_Uranium.5.aspx

Etc

You know if you want gun control how about you actually dig deep and make a decent argument for it?

You say there were 30,000 gun deaths in 2010 but provide no reference. Okay fine I'll give a source. As it turns out the number is 31,672 firearm deaths in 2010 in the United States. If you open the PDF you'll find that 61.2% of these (19,383) were suicides. 35% (11,085) were homicides. I haven't looked at exactly where justifiable homicide is included but according to the FBI statistics it's only a few hundred.

In either case the bulk of the deaths come from suicide and homicide. Let's focus on suicide real quick. Now, one argument could be made that stricter gun control would lessen the number of firearm related suicides given how easy, deadly, and obtainable firearms are. According to the data suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States for the year of 2010 at 38,364 deaths. I assume this includes the previously mentioned 19,383 suicides by firearm. Now how much would stricter gun control lessen the number of suicides given the fact that only around 50% of them are due to firearms? If so by how much? That is a valid topic of debate and one you could put forth for stricter gun control.

Now let's focus on the homicides, 35% of all firearm related deaths. This is actually a pretty complex subject that is rather hard to find data on. For instance would better education lower firearm related deaths such as gang shootings? Would stricter gun control have a similar effect or would those homicides be shuffled into other categories such as blunt objects or knives? How does the prohibition on drugs and the subsequent black market and illicit trade of them affect violent crime, particularly with firearms? I don't have any data to link to off the top of my head. Feel free to supply data, studies, and sources that strengthens your position that gun control would reduce these numbers, preferably more than other means.

Now see, that is the beginning of a good debate on gun control. Granted it's only one facet of gun control as there are others, but it's better than throwing around a misleading number and claiming gun control will solve everything.

P.S. Chances are you'll die from heart disease or cancer. Smoking and being out of shape is vastly more likely to kill you than a gun.

US Deaths caused by illicit drug overdose - ~5,000 per year
WAR ON DRUGS!!!!

US Deaths caused by automobile accidents - 30,000 per year
umm...
We'll get back to you on that.

Without getting into whether the war on drugs is justified, it's worth pointing out that a fraction of those 34,677 automobile accident deaths are due to illicit drug use. How much is difficult to say since the stats I was able to find last time I looked simply classified those accidents as caused by "driving under the influence" without distinguishing between alcohol and controlled substances. For reference, alcohol alone is responsible for about a third of the automobile accident fatalities. So you should expect a problem on a similar scale of illicit drugs were legalized. (Not saying this is justification for the war on drugs, just pointing out that it's a factor you need to consider.)

And for the people trying to make this a gun control issue, of the 31,718 firearm-caused deaths in 2011, (p18-19) 11,101 (35%) were homicides, 851 (3%) were accidental discharges. The vast majority, 19,766 (62%), were suicides. The U.S. is right in the middle for suicide rates in OECD countries, so it's reasonable to believe most of those suicides would have been successful even without access to guns.

You're far more likely to die in an auto accident or of heart disease... Where's all the fear of automobiles and fast food?

Indeed. About 3000 people have died from terrorism *since* 2001 10 times more people die (PDF warning) *each year* by suicide. The numbers and justifications for all this "yeahbut think of teh terroristss!!" malarkey is just that. Malarkey. Malarkey based on irrational fear, scooped up and eaten by a drama staved public.

Engineering is done by humans as as the thousands of poorly engineered building,bridges, cars, planes,trains, consumer products killing thousands/millions have shown us is that engineering is no guarantee of safety.

Could you cite those statistics for death caused not by human error?

Because, according to the CDC, 35,000+ people died of auto accidents in 2010, compared to only just under 17,000 for all "other" non-transport, non-firearm, non-poisoning, non-fall, non-fire/smoke, non-drowning deaths. And that was a GOOD year for automotive deaths -- one of the lowest in decades. For all the national panic over September 11th, we lose well over 10x that number of people every year thanks to auto accidents. More people die every year from car accidents than from firearms, fire, and poison combined.

That's just the fatalities! Only about 8% of crashes result in fatalities thanks to nearly miraculous advances in modern medicine. There are about 6 million crashes per year and about 2.3 million people sent to the hospital as a result. That's about a $70 billion drain on the economy every year. 44% of people with spinal cord injuries obtained them from a car accident.

Getting in a car is the single most dangerous thing you do every day.

While engineering may be no guarantee of perfect safety, but it's practically a guarantee of lowered risks. Human error was the sole cause of 57% of all accidents and a contributing factor in over 90% Mechanical error alone was only 2.4%. The top three contributing factors to accidents are driver inattention, alcohol, and speed. A driverless system (that obeys traffic laws) eliminates all three.

To make the argument that driverless cars would be less safe than humans is a joke, especially when it's such a low bar to reach.

Engineering is done by humans as as the thousands of poorly engineered building,bridges, cars, planes,trains, consumer products killing thousands/millions have shown us is that engineering is no guarantee of safety.

Could you cite those statistics for death caused not by human error?

Because, according to the CDC, 35,000+ people died of auto accidents in 2010, compared to only just under 17,000 for all "other" non-transport, non-firearm, non-poisoning, non-fall, non-fire/smoke, non-drowning deaths. And that was a GOOD year for automotive deaths -- one of the lowest in decades. For all the national panic over September 11th, we lose well over 10x that number of people every year thanks to auto accidents. More people die every year from car accidents than from firearms, fire, and poison combined.

That's just the fatalities! Only about 8% of crashes result in fatalities thanks to nearly miraculous advances in modern medicine. There are about 6 million crashes per year and about 2.3 million people sent to the hospital as a result. That's about a $70 billion drain on the economy every year. 44% of people with spinal cord injuries obtained them from a car accident.

Getting in a car is the single most dangerous thing you do every day.

While engineering may be no guarantee of perfect safety, but it's practically a guarantee of lowered risks. Human error was the sole cause of 57% of all accidents and a contributing factor in over 90% Mechanical error alone was only 2.4%. The top three contributing factors to accidents are driver inattention, alcohol, and speed. A driverless system (that obeys traffic laws) eliminates all three.

To make the argument that driverless cars would be less safe than humans is a joke, especially when it's such a low bar to reach.

People can make statistics support whatever position they want to, and none of those are in the least bit relevant. The facts are that if DDT were being made in quantities sufficient for protecting the millions of acres of US farmland, it would be even cheaper via economy of scale.

"Facts don't matter, my poor understanding of economic theory trumps all".

In 1971 the US used 14 million pounds of DDT, around 6340 tonnes, i.e around 2/3 of current world production. Where's the economy of scale?

Use had been higher in the '60s, up to 27 million pounds in 1966, but that is only 12000 tonnes, about 33% more than current production. Is that enough to produce massive economies of scale?

Source: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35-c5.pdf

How will they account for the widely varying incubation periods of different foodborne illnesses?

Two of the most common infections, E Coli and Salmonella, can take several days to show symptoms.

WTF are you talking about.

A. This has nothing to do with fear mongering against Muslims, in exactly the same way that reporting on SARS had nothing to do with fear mongering against China. I say this even though China and Saudi Arabia went about managing their outbreaks in exactly the same way: pretending it wasn't happening.

B. http://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/mers/
Total Cases: 94
Deaths: 46

C. This isn't a flu virus, this is a deadlier cousin of SARS, which spread to ~3 dozen countries in a matter of weeks

This is the promotion of unrealistic fear, nothing more.

You sound like the boy who wouldn't cry wolf.
A novel respiratory virus that's killed 50% of known patients is extremely deserving of "the promotion of [del]unrealistic[/del] fear"
The sooner we can figure out where it originates, the sooner we can wipe out that animal reservoir and rely on human quarantines to prevent further spread.

And automobile accidents are the leading cause of death in the US. But we still do it.

Off by a LONG shot. Heart disease causes almost 20x more deaths. So does Cancer. (source, source) Plus, people driving cars at least feel like they are in control of the situation (even if they are still likely to be hit by some other maniac.) When hurtling through a tube at 600 mph, you are at the mercy of the odds and nothing else.

Just give us the same thing that got rid of them the last time around. DDT works.

Bedbugs were apparently resistant to DDT by the 1950s.

Not much. Even when you pick out the bullets, the ground is contaminated with lead. And if it... you know... rains, that water goes somewhere. The study was done in Flordia however, where swampland is fairly prevalent.

The difference is that animal crap degrades and can turn into, among other things, food that is perfectly healthy to consume. Lead on the other hand, doesn't break down very easily. If you eat a fish that has eaten a bunch of fish crap, nobody cares. If you eat a fish that suckled lead shot all day long, you might want to get that looked at. Except that there's not much you can do for low levels of lead poisoning, even though it's detrimental. If you've got high enough levels that it's putting you in a hospital, there's something called chelation therapy.

I need to emphasise how extraordinarily unlikely it is for a measles outbreak to occur in a vaccinated population. Unless a new strain of measles has arisen that the vaccine is not effective against - and as far as I know measles is incredibly stable - then the only way that an outbreak can occur is in the unvaccinated population.

What an absolute load of bullshit

Measles (Rubeola) in Previously Immunized Children, Pediatrics Vol. 46 No. 3 September 1970, pp. 397-402
Measles Outbreak among Vaccinated High School Students — Illinois, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 1984 Report
A measles outbreak at a college with a prematriculation immunization requirement. American Journal of Public Health (1991)
Explosive School-based Measles Outbreak, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1998
Largest Measles Outbreak in the Americas since 2000: Quebec Ongoing Epidemic, IDSA Boston Oral Abstract, 2011

Big snore

I forgot my reference.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

--
BMO

While measles can be fatal so can be Chicken Pox, so it would be like our children saying the same thing about Chicken Pox when they are adults. Sure it is uncomfortable and not at all desirable to get the parents should not be charged.

Around 150,000 people around the world die from measels each year and about 38% of young children who get it end up being treated in a hospital. About 3 out of 1000 children who get the disease will die even with the best available medical care. Given that the vaccine demonstrably reduces the incidence and number of fatalities, I think your argument is severely flawed.

Also there more than a fear of Autism there is a moral reason some choose not to have their children vaccinated, some of these vaccines were developed using aborted fetuses

I don't care AT ALL about people's religious objections to vaccines. Such objections are a danger to public health. If these people want to endanger just themselves and are consenting adults, then fine. But I will never support them in endangering either their own children or other people based on some crazy mythology. Their right to religious freedom ends when it becomes a public health hazard. If they want to come up with an objection based on actual verifiable facts then I'm willing to discuss it.

Rotavirus not fatal? Um sorry but that's wrong.

It's one of the most potentially deadly childhood diseases. Worldwide half a million children die from it each year.

Even in the US 30-60 children die from it each year.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt13-rotavirus.html

As far as Hep B, it's a nasty chronic infection that 1 million US citizens suffer from. Most get it as a child. Over time it can cause serious liver damage.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hepb/fs-parents.html

Rotavirus not fatal? Um sorry but that's wrong.

It's one of the most potentially deadly childhood diseases. Worldwide half a million children die from it each year.

Even in the US 30-60 children die from it each year.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt13-rotavirus.html

As far as Hep B, it's a nasty chronic infection that 1 million US citizens suffer from. Most get it as a child. Over time it can cause serious liver damage.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hepb/fs-parents.html

I would say it's more than simple misconduct. He knowing published false information so he could get a pay off.
Misconduct would be more like, putting a loved one on a potential drug trial to help them get treated. Wakefield is responsible for bringing back diseases to nearly epidemic levels.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a1.htm