Following the debate on airport scanning I keep seeing versions of a particular kind of argument. It takes this form:
I’d rather be groped/x-rayed than blown up by a terrorist
I just want to point out that this fails to recognise that it pits a certainty against a (remote) possibility. I could argue back that if we want to try equating possibilities we might consider weighing the health risks (on which there isn’t an absolutely clear scientific consensus) of the X rays against the apparently statistically remote risks of terrorism.