> [WS:] Inconvenienced - sure, but criminalized? C'mon.
>
> In any case, you seem to argue that if the probability of risk is small,
> that risk should take the back seat vis a vis the interest of many people.
>
> Since the argument is a normative statement, it cannot be verified against
> evidence, but at least it should be universal, as that old fart Kant had it.
> So let's apply this argument to, say, the Katrina debacle. The risk of
> major damage was small so the federal government decided it was not worth
> wasting taxpayers dollars on improving levees. The left-of-the center folk
> criticized the government for ignoring that small risk, when it
> materialized. Yet the same people blame the government for exaggerating
> small risk when it comes to terrorism.
>
> The industry is minimizing or altogether ignoring a relatively small risk of
> major environmental catastrophe as a result of human-triggered climate
> change. The left-of-the center folk criticize the industry for ignoring the
> risk of environmental disaster, but when it comes to terrorism, they
> criticize the airlines for overreacting to small risk of terrorism.
>
> Is this a double standard or am I missing something?
>
> Wojtek
As far as the Katrina analogy you are missing something. While the risk of any individual storm becoming a Cat 5 and hitting New Orleans was small is was also nearly certain that at some point in time this was nearly inevitable. Much like an earthquake. The chance of a 7.6 hitting L.A. tomorrow is quite slim but the chance of it happening in the next 30 years is quite high. Not being prepared for Katrina is more closely analogous to not building structures in CA to withstand earthquakes than exagerating the possible effects of the liquid bomb as either a scare tactic or out of ignorance.
I spoke with my old chemistry professor about the liquid explosive idea and he was unconvinced. He said the chemical reaction he read was being discussed would certainly burn people onboard the plane but not cause an explosion sufficient to damage the plane in any way he could think of. While he's not a structural engineer he didn't think the force behind such a device could even break out the windows if placed in his van. He also said that you would need several people with 2 liter sized containers of the chemicals to get a reaction sufficient to burn a large number of people as well as some device in which the contents could all be quickly placed into. I have a tough time envisioning 6 adults all simultaneously pouring liquids from large bottles, some of it quite strong smelling, into some type of container while everyone just sits around watching and scratching their heads in wonder.
John Thornton