What is Digg?656 Comments
- commnode, on 10/10/2007, -8/+251It's not so much what we die of that shocks society, but how we die.
So long as it's new, people will fear it. Cars, cancer, and heart disease have been around for long time, but we're used to dying from them now. - mrpink.137, on 10/10/2007, -18/+184The True Threat to Americans:
http://temperateddtg.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/black_bear.jpg - cruzlee, on 10/10/2007, -7/+123Damn, that looks like a tasty burger.
- kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -11/+112Considering how threatening illegal drugs are, you'd expect it to be somewhere on that list. Right? Right?
- openthink, on 10/10/2007, -18/+105interesting graphic. had no idea #s of deaths by suicide, medical mistakes, even drunken driving were so high. and homicides, nearly 100k?; pretty scary and depressing.
- ScrumFritter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51I'm not sure you've fully grasped the ultimate goal of terrorism. Terrorism is used to create fear within a society, to destabilise it (hence the catchy name 'Terror - ism'). Their ultimate goal isn't to kill every last living thing on Earth - they just want us to get out of their countries. Which frankly, is a fair request. The fact that the US and the UK are over there all the time, shooting up the joint, pretty much consistently for the last couple of decades makes US look like the tyrants. No wonder they're attacking us - to them, THEY'RE the heroes, fighting the Evil Western Empire that thinks so much of itself it figures it can trample all over the middle east.
- jjed824, on 10/10/2007, -0/+41hence....preventable.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+44Everybody already knows this, but preventing terrorism is easier then getting fat Americans to stop eating burgers and smoke.
- theholyraptor, on 04/07/2008, -6/+40The threat to AMERICANS. Therefore any suicide bomber in the middle east is either
a)attacking some other countrys citizens or
b)committing an act of war
terrorist implies an attack against civilians. Iraqi's etc blowing up troops that are wondering down the streets carrying weapons doesn't count as terrorism in my book. They're fighting a war just like we're fighting a war, one side has billions of dollers spent in technology, whereas the other has to make home made bombs out of cell phones. If America had decided to invade Germany for some bizarre reason, you would consider it a war cause there army would be fighting our army and both would have a similar level of technology involved.
That's how I see it, and this has nothing to do with judging what America is doing over there, it's just my definition of terrorist. - JahRage, on 10/10/2007, -4/+36You can extend this chart back about 30 years and it only gets more out of proportion. Why is everyone so scared about terrorism? We lose more people in traffic accidents. Why is America full of such scared people now? Terrorism can NEVER be wiped out because it is a tactic. You can kill all of Al Quada tomorrow, but the tactic of terror would still remain. This is a dangerous world people, deal with it and grow a pair.
- Jeeum, on 10/10/2007, -8/+40Every few seconds somebody starves to death...and most of these are children.
How many Iraqi deaths are we responsible for?
"Irregardless" is not a word BTW. - cyberdork, on 10/10/2007, -16/+47Oh, could you please inform us about which other acts of terrorism should have been included?
- tkotam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32264,000 died of medical mistakes???? War on Al-Doctor, Al-Nurses and Al-Pfizer coming soon....!!!
- digg5, on 10/10/2007, -93/+123This graph is designed to be misleading. They list ONE individual act of terrorism as the deaths from ALL terrorism, yet they list all other killers as a consecutive count.
- gmason08, on 10/10/2007, -3/+33Hmm, since "lack of health care" deaths=108,000 and "medical mistakes" deaths=264,000 should we conclude that a LACK of health care contributes to a "healthier lifestyle"?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -15/+45BTW, 100% people who ate cucumbers, died or will die in the nearest future!!!!
FIGHT CUCUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111oneone - sabach, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29But you see, I missed the part where the world made it any of our business.
- MillionsLivio, on 10/10/2007, -9/+35Suicide in a mass aspect is not preventable by the government.
- retawd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28TRUTHINESS!
- x0nIMIn0x, on 10/10/2007, -4/+30The sample group is only from the USA. Aside from the folks who fell ill from Anthrax in late 2001, and all of the poor hostages murdered by their captors, I can't think of any additional American terrorism-related deaths from 2000-2005 that would change the figure substantially.
What were you thinking of? You're not counting soldiers' deaths, are you? I would call those war-related losses rather than label them as the victims of terrorism. - davin510, on 10/10/2007, -18/+43Both heart disease and cancer are both age and genetics dependent. The longer you live, the more likely it is you'll die from one of these two (and w/ cancer, the rate of onset is almost exponential after a certain age). I really don't see how this is preventable unless we reverted back to the turn of the 20th century where life expectancy was under 50 years.
- blinky04, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27Lets just say if we get attacked again, we won't be as shocked as we were on 9-11.
This system works! - kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25You know Official estimates of the number of deaths in Iraq caused by the occupation is coming up to 500,000. As we have been around much less time in Iraq than Saddam was, it works out that more people die per day now than under Saddam. So for the average Iraqi there is a greater chance of being killed now than under Saddam.
- nzezelj89, on 10/10/2007, -6/+289/11 was a tragic event, but other tragic events happen everyday, however, no one likes to talk about them. Obviously this chart won't change anyone's eating habits or even smoking habits, but it's good to put it out there. dugg ^_^
- themanmachine, on 10/10/2007, -13/+34so let's start getting used to dying from terrorists
- ScrumFritter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22Natural Causes is preventable now? Why isn't THAT story on the front page?!
- archlich, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28They forgot the #1 killer of all people, old age.
/sarcasm - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21You're toast.
- tmyprod, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Umm... the graph is for America from 2000 to 2005.
- themanmachine, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24masterm1nd, since when have there been thousands of suicide bombings and IED's in AMERICA, are you ***** retarded? the graph is about AMERICANS and how AMERICA has been spending all of its resources on fighting terror when at home there are far more significant hazards and threats.
- NoTiG, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22hey guess what... everything is genetics dependent. How we walk is genetics dependent. How we talk is genetics dependent. The fact that if we ingest a poison and we die... that is also because of genetics. Does that mean that dying from poison is unpreventable because it is due to our genetics? No... wake up.
- patch6, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19The second-hand smoke statistics are questionable, since distinguishing it from background pollution, odorless or otherwise, is a difficult task. The politicization of it doesn't help the objectivity issue much, either.
Link #7 doesn't address the issue convincingly either. - DougO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14can I have your bike?
- sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14We didn't need a War on Terror, we needed all the law-enforcement agencies to stop holding pissing contests with each other and start doing their ***** jobs.
- Kmack928, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Lol. the fear mongering is even worse than I thought. I honestly hope the writer was being sarcastic.
Terrorism is a joke, you 'd be better off worrying about other drivers on the highway than Osama. More prudent to watch your intake of fatty foods than to watch for Hijackers.
stupid *****, stop being scared of nothing! - spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14The same is true of water treatment plants, abattoirs, farms, power plants, grocery stores, etc. etc. etc. There are a zillion people working in places where a small act could injure a huge number of people. Are you going to live in fear all your life?
- consonance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14WHAT ABOUT PICKLES?!?!?! ARE PICKLES SAFE?!?!?!?!1111111111
/cruise_control_for_cool - cyberdork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Yeah right. Maybe you already forgot the 70s and 80s, but terrorism was rampant during those decades WITHOUT a 'War on Terror', and how many US casualties were there? Let's see, the Beirut bombings, Berlin bombings, some hostages and airplane crashes... That's what? Like a couple hundreds over a 20 year period? And don't give me that nuke BS, you watch too much 24.If it was so easy to get them, they why wouldn't Iran and North Korea just buy them, instead of running elaborate research programs with thousands of engineers and scientists involved.
- Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14It's times like these where I wish there were a +25 digg button you could only use once a week, cause you'd have gotten my push easily. Hats off to your common sense.
- ajaxfontura, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12It clearly says that the statistics are for 2000-2005. There's no intent to mislead here.
And it wouldn't be hard to make this info misleading. How many terrorism deaths have there been 2002-2005? The point is (and this is an important one) that terrorism, while awful and deserving of a serious response, is historically (even including 9/11) a relatively small cause of death.
Be careful about confusing propaganda with a serious attempt to inform. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -9/+21"lack of health care 108,000".
! - ZakMcRofl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Well the people who die at war aren't dying because of terrorism, they are dying because your stupid president chose to go to an unneccessary war against the wrong people.
- Frost9999, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14It looks to me like I am doing a great job of protecting my neighbourhood from polar bears. That's right, not a single polar bear attack in London since I moved here.
- potifar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13The "ie" part. It's "dying".
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11will to live < will to die
- speerross, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"They list ONE individual act of terrorism as the deaths from ALL terrorism,"
Yeah becuase give or take a few anthrax deaths you've only ever had ONE individual act of terrorism. Over here in Britain we've had the IRA bombing us for 30 years, the Spanish have had ETA bombing the crap out of them as well as many other countries. And guess who started a world-spanning war about? - aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10To play devils advocate since when do Iraqi's pay taxes to the US? Since when do they vote in our elections for their country? We have enough problems.
- HairyFotr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13From Wikipedia: Current research indicates that the factor with the greatest impact on risk of lung cancer is long-term exposure to inhaled carcinogens, especially tobacco smoke. The occurance of lung cancer in others (less than one tenth) appears to be due to a combination of genetic factors and exposure to secondhand smoke. Radon gas and air pollution may also contribute to the development of lung cancer.
If there wasn't for smoking, lung cancer would be relatively rare... So if someone diagnosed with lung cancer tells the doctor he was around smokers a lot, then second-hand smoking is the most likely explanation. That, and traces of particles found in cigarette smoke in their lungs. - kjcdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9BEARS!!!
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Kim Jong Il is a butcher and ***** wackjob. Why don't we invade North Korea?
The fact that we don't agree with another country's leader doesn't give us the right to invade and depose said leader. Yes Saddam was a *****, but we had no business there. How would Americans think if the tables were turned? Bush is destroying the reputation of the country in front of the world, he's spreading war, fear, and destruction. Not to mention he's violating our Constitution constantly. In the eyes of another country, say Russia for example, the US is a danger and should be stopped and they feel "regime change" is needed. So Russia invades the US, captures Bush, and then leaves this country in shambles with no infrastructre, barely any police forces, and no economy to speak of. Do you think that would be right? Do you think that Russia has the perogative to do such a thing or that such a thing would be beneficial to the world at large? -
Show 51 - 100 of 634 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 