View Single Post
Old 10-22-2010, 08:50 AM   #280
jbjb
Somewhat clueless
jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 772
Karma: 9999999
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeLoon View Post
As I think you recognize, my point was that listing possible risks only gets you so far. At a certain point, you want to "quantify" the risks, i.e., assign some numbers to them, or at least ranges/orders of magnitude. When you're considering taking a medication and one of the possible side effects is "death," I assume you are interested in how frequently the medication causes death! My frustration with the FAA is they seem unwilling to bring the discussion into the realm of numbers.
The trouble is, it's staggeringly hard to quantify the risk. You could try and calculate it from the theory, but that is intractable. Alternatively, you could do what the drug companies do with the medications you mention and conduct trials. Hands up anyone who wants to fly on one of the "let's see if this much EMI will crash the plane" flights!

While we're still at the stage where the risk is unquantifiable, but can be theoretically shown to be present, the safest option seems to me to be to obey the rules!

/JB
jbjb is offline   Reply With Quote