To think ratio­nally about risk is to think prob­a­bilis­ti­cally / sta­tis­ti­cally about the dan­gers we face.

Not­ing that “the most dan­ger­ous per­son you’re ever likely to encounter – by sev­eral orders of mag­ni­tude – is the one you see in the mir­ror every morn­ing”, John Goek­ler offers some per­spec­tive on what risks we really should be more con­cerned about than ter­ror­ism.

A sig­nif­i­cant major­ity of Amer­i­cans, polls repeat­edly tell us, list ter­ror­ism as one of their great­est fears. Like most of our media-inspired inter­ests and wor­ries, how­ever, this one has lit­tle basis in reality. […]

As the data clearly shows, the things that gen­uinely threaten us are the ones we are most likely to ignore or sim­ply accept. (We’re sta­tis­ti­cally far more likely to be killed by a light­ning strike than by an action of Al Qaeda, for exam­ple.) The ones that we’re scared wit­less of – and spend tril­lions of increas­ingly scarce dol­lars to avert in our bound­less para­noia – are less likely to harm us than a bag of peanuts. (Deaths in Amer­ica due to peanut aller­gies aver­age 50 – 100 per year. Deaths of Amer­i­cans due to ter­ror­ist activ­i­ties […] have aver­aged less than 15 per year since 2002.)

via Schneier