More on science reporting
Any newspaper article which claims something increases your risk of something by an outrageous percentage, but then neglects to point out that in terms of, say, deaths per thousand might mean an increase of 0.05 to 0.1. That really, really annoys the tits off me.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 2 May 2008, 21:30, 4 replies)

*claps*
I try to think of my chances of dying as "more or less likely to be hit by a bus".

Then I go and have a beer...
(Rakky (forgot her password) The muffin maverick, Fri 2 May 2008, 22:27, closed)

I've resigned myself
to the fact that my chances of death are 100%.

Statistics are mostly bollocks anyway. Especially when the numbers are so low that a small difference results in a large percentage swing, such as casualties on a particular road. If there are on average say 4 deaths a year on a stretch of the A1 for example, one really bad incident could skew the death toll for that year by a large amount, and get the campaigners bleating.

On a similar note, I travelled back from Skye today, a journey of well over 200 miles, much of it on Highland A roads. I was (when I found clear road) driving quite quickly, but safely and making good progress until I came upon the numerous tourists out for the holiday weekend. I managed to overtake most of them without too much trouble though.

There were numerous cars around Fort William with stickers campaigning for an upgrade to the A82. Fair enough, it takes a while to get anywhere because there's a lot of slow traffic on the road. But that led me to the conclusion that it's not the road itself that's at fault; I showed this by making good time on the road, while taking no unnecessary risks. Instead it's the fault of people driving too slowly.

Fair enough, it's picturesque round there, and tourists like to look at the mountains. But all it needs is a few signs and a few more laybys to inform drivers not to fanny around and use the laybys to allow faster traffic to pass.

Problem solved.

I should be transport minister!
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 2 May 2008, 22:47, closed)

The death rate in the world...
...has actually risen from 1 per person in the last say 2,000 years. Or even 50 years.

We now bring people back from the 'dead' to the point where they're not even considered "properly" dead anymore- even though they clearly are.

So, K2k6, the chances of dying are more than 1 per person, so it's probably about 101% chance you'll definately die! Now THAT is a weird thought and a blatant misuse of statistics.
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Fri 2 May 2008, 23:48, closed)

Add to that
the fact that most of the "studies" (especially the ones on bbc news and such like) aren't even statistically sound or recognised as a scientific study (MMR hype for example) and you have yourself a whole load of fear mongering.
(Monkeyofspong, Sat 3 May 2008, 0:01, closed)