Asymmetrical Information

Less than 10% (probably less than 1%) of the chance that you will be run over by a NYC cab driver on your way to or from one of the stations.

Zero. We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

In all seriousness, be well. We want you safe and tall.

What's the evacuation plan for New York City again, since the nightmare scenario exists dirty bomb scenario exists?

--Cobra

Math is quite simple:

(Probability of an attack on a given day X casualties) / people on subway per day.

Obviously the probability is unknown, casualties are, toom, but in a narrow range. If we take guesstimates of say a 1% chance, 100 casualties and 2.7 million commuters each day, I get 3,7e-7, or about 1/10th the chance of getting struck by lightning. Even on a day you KNOW a bomb is going to go off, your chance will be a third of a percent. Or, any case you turn it, "not very much of a chance".

apex

Does "pretty good" suffice, or do you want a number? And when you add in the fact that the Miers nomination isn't going well and Karl Rove is headed back to the grand jury, I'm cynical enough to think the odds are even better than statistics alone might suggest.

Great, 9 Arab terrorists running around with suitcase bombs, and yet if I carry a concealed handgun, I'm the greater threat to civil liberties. There is a lot to loathe about this city.

This may be a dumb question (I'm not a New Yorker.), but isn't there a bus you can take? I realize it might be a pain in the half-moons, but probably not as much as having your half-moons blown off. I'm not one to embrace paranoia, but if the mayor announced that the feds had crdible information about a specific terrorist plot to bomb the subway, I'd take the bus. But that's just me.

JimN:

You might have missed it, but the 7/7 attacks in London rather sepectacularly blew up a bus after the tube system was shut down. Riding a bus instead of the sbway might not exactly be sufficient an evasion manoeuvre.

Jane, did ya make it okay? It's not nice to leave us hanging like this.

What's the evacuation plan for New York City again, since the nightmare scenario exists dirty bomb scenario exists?

Same one as New Orleans, probably. And when the FEMA black helicopter gunships fail to escort the C-130 transports and med ships in for evac/assist in less than ten hours following the event, the media response plan will probably also be the same.

Since the 1997 attempt to bomb the NYC subway by Islamic terrorists was at a station near where the suspects were living (Atlantic Ave/Pacific Street in downtown Brooklyn), and since once they get an idea in their head it doesn't shake loose, I'd look at where reports say the radical Islamists main sites are located in the New York area (Bay Ridge in Brooklyn on the R line and Jersey City on the PATH line are where the suspected mosques are found), and be on guard the most while riding on lines that serve those areas.

(The bad part is 10 subway lines pass through the Atlantic Ave./Pacific St. stations -- inclduing six, plus PATH, that serve the Herald Square station in Mahattan that reportedly was targeted during the nearby 2004 RNC convention -- so there are lots of options for any terrorists operating out of safe houses in Arab enclaves in the Metro NYC area.)

You need to get a bullet proof vest. $300 to $600 dollars gets you a good one. When not wearing it, just put it in your carry brief case and use the brief case as a shield. I know in NYC you can't carry anything to protect yourself (not so here in Dallas) but you can (at least for now) have a shield.

You might also want to get one of those disposable gas mask that stop smoke and toxic fumes. They run $40 bucks on the interent on up. Keep that in your purse to!

Please post a photograph of yourself in the bullet-proof vest and gas mask. Also, please let us know how your new "costume" is received by the NYTA Police.

Look guys, I suspect Jane is fine...otherwise you would have heard something about the EXPLOSION or the DIRTY BOMB or whatever.

Now they're down-plaing the threat anyway. The source isn't all that reliable, it hasn't been confirmed, some other stuff. Quite frankly, as a New Yorker myself, I can't say I'm terribly worried. I choose to live in a city where I know there is a certain amount of risk involved. My choice. If I die in a terrorist attack, then that's what happens. It would really, really suck, but there is nothing I can do about it but move out of the city, and I'm not willing to do that yet.

So just chill out, okay?

Same one as New Orleans, probably.

AFAIK, the evacuation plan for NYC don't count on the competence of Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco. So it seems likely that the effectiveness of the plan for NYC would be much greater.

I was under the impression there would be no math during these posts.

I agree with Kate. And, Kate, since we both may be killed at any time, what are you doing tonight?

Boy, Spenser, after a polite inquiry like that, you'd think Kate'd have the decency to respond! It's getting so the city just ain't fit for good folk. I blame Ashcroft.

As an engineer, I can use the power of estimation. Given the vast number of almost impossible to determine factors, I'd have to say that your odds of being hit by a terrorist attack today are fairly low with a high margin of error.

I'm not sure what a mathematician or statistician would do without any useful data to base an estimate on...

Have you heard the engineer's proof that all odd numbers are prime? 1, 3, 5, and 7 are prime. 11 and 13 are prime. 9 is an anomaly. If 6 of the first 7 odd numbers are prime, then all odd numbers are prime. Even counting 15, 17, and 19 only gives you 1 more prime for 2 out of 10 odd numbers not prime. Not quite as compelling, but still a pretty good estimate.

Jeez David, give a gal a break! I have an actual job and don't just troll the internet all day looking to see if someone has responded to a post.

Spenser, thank you for the inquiry, I have a hard policy never to meet strange men from the internet. Just a funny rule I made up. Bombs on the subway...WHATEVER! Strange men from the internet...NO WAY!

Perhaps I'll see you the next time Jane is at one of those Blogging events which always seem to be scheduled for the weekends I'm away.

And there's the one about the 3 engineers who were discussing what kind of engineer God must be.

The mechanical engineer said, "Well, God must have been a mechanical engineer. Surely if you look at the human body, what with all the joints, tendons, the musculature all designed for the pounding the body takes, it's clear he was a mechanical engineer."

The electrical engineer speaks up, "but if you look at the nervous system, the brain, with all its intricacies, one must admit that God had to be an electrical engineer".

The civil engineer finally speaks, "God must have been a civil engineer, who else would have run a waste disposal line right through the middle of a recreation area?"

Spenser

Is that you, man? What are you doin' in New York? You and Susan having problems? You should just sit down and talk with her, get things back in balance.

Hey call me. I need your recipe for scallops.

Mathematically, the odds are approximately fuhgettabadit. Calcluation here. Go about your business and let the cops worry about catching the bad guys.

Kate writes:

I have a hard policy never to meet strange men from the internet.

Fortunately for me, the future Mrs. Michigander had no such rule. :)

Back when the IRA was still blowing things up pretty regularly, my husband and I lived in London for about 7 months. During that time, I missed a tube bomb by one train (the bomb went off in the station from which I commuted within 5 minutes after my train), my husband was involved in two "suspicious package" tube-station evacuations (during which, I might add, there was no "Mind... the gap" about the process; the loudspeaker guy just started shouting, "Get out of the station! Get out of the station!" and everyone took off running for the nearest exits), a double-decker bus he was on hit a bicyclist (passengers on the bus who were native to London said they'd never even HEARD of such a thing), and the shop in the City where he worked had its windows blown out by the biggest IRA bomb since - I can't remember what, but it was a big one, that went off just after rush hour, so that only 2? 3? people were killed, including the bomber. (It was, IIRC, an unintentional suicide bomb: went off in the guy's car before he had a chance to plant it where he wanted it.) We figured it was just us.

Probably your odds in Manhattan are pretty good. Our odds in London were great. But odds are only odds...

We were just talking the other night about how many people were employed in or visiting the twin towers on 9/11; I gather it was around 50,000 workers, with many tens of thousands of visitors and tourists. I recall early casualty estimates saying that as many as 100,000 people could have been killed that terrible day. The fact that two commercial jets crashed into and brought down two of the world's tallest buildings at a time when most workers were at work there, with only tens of minutes to evacuate and many floors above the crash level being almost impossible to evacuate from, and "only" 3,000 people were killed - well, that would indicate a rough 94% chance ("rough" because obviously your chances were much better if you were near ground level, for instance, and near 0% if you were on a floor that was hit) that if you were working in the buildings that day you'd have survived. Amazing. And entirely without comfort for any of the family or friends of the 3,000 who did not. Odds are only odds.

Further research indicates that my previous post was woefully uninformed... While up to 50,000 workers might have been employed in the World Trade Center complex, the 9/11 commission concluded that less than 20,000 were present at the time of the attacks. Much worse odds.

Let's see... assuming a worst case scenario (bomb explosion kills everybody, Islamocreeps target subway during the 6 primetime rush hours, are successful, you're on the subway at that hour), odds of being on the wrong bus at the wrong time is, what, 1/20 buses/hour x 1/6 hours x number of major hubs [dunno] x number of simultaneous bombs [also dunno] )... no greater than 1% in the worst case, actually much much less.

That said and done, be safe!

You're the best example of a blog that I know of to prove to various Leftist friends that non-socialists:
a) aren't evil and
b) care about poverty

Ed Reid,

The bullet proof vest is CONCEALED under your garments and the mask is very small and easy to put in a purse (so small it will fit in a side pocket of one. After all, they are disposable.)

Sheesh. If you're doing calculations the Bad Guys (or gals, apparently) have already won. Unless you're a cop, just go about your business and take the damn subway. Threat or no, these scum *want* you to do equations, figuring out if you're going to be roadkill; they rely on we nervous-nelly infidels wringing our bejeweled hands like this.

The biggest middle finger you can give these goons is showing you're not going to be terrorized.

Sheesh. If you're doing calculations the Bad Guys (or gals, apparently) have already won.

Sometiimes, and inquiry for curiosity's sake really is just an inquirty for curiosity's sake, not evidence that the Bad Folks have already won. Failing that, allow me to familiarize you with a relevant little phrase: "gallows humor."

Valjean: If the calculations show that NYC taxicab drivers are a far bigger threat than the terrorists, have the terrorists still won?

markm:
Different issue, methinks. Please tell me how "calculations" will show this ... I expect you'd be referring to something a bit more concrete, e.g., a verified report of a cab driver carrying a bomb. I'm referring to psychological terror that clearly intends to be just that -- mind games -- and "doing the math" shows me that a beachhead has been established.

But based on your response, maybe not with you.

anony-mouse:
Oh, is *that* all this is? My bad. Jane's language ("credible threat of a plot to bomb ...") just didn't tickly my funny bone.

Valjean, since you appear to have completely missed markm's point, I'll risk putting words into his mouth and offer an explanation.

It has nothing whatever to do with taxi drivers carrying bombs. Rather, taxis in the course of going about their normal business are occasionally involved in accidents, and in some of those accidents people are killed. Thus, taxis represent a risk in and of themselves. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask the question, which is the greater risk, taxi drivers or terrorists, and one can indeed answer that with appropriate calculations.

To make it plainer, we, each of us everyday, engage willingly in behaviors that carry a risk of injury or death. Therefore, introducing some new risk factor into our lives, say the threat of a terrorist bomb, is of no account unless it increases our risk significantly beyond this baseline. That is, it makes little sense to worry over being killed by an event that is a hundred times less likely than being in a fatal car accident.

So, we arrive finally at the crux of the argument, which is that when deciding how to respond to some new risk, we must soberly consider how much of a risk it really is if we are to decide on an appropriate strategy for managing it. Asking that question is not a sign that the terrorists have won; on the contrary, it is only when we have become so overwrought with emotion that we are afraid to ask such questions that the terrorists have won.

Hope this clears things up.

-rpl

Kate: I am sorry if I came down too hard on you. It was not intentional. It's just, reading Spenser's post, I was thrilled by its obvious sincerity and was overcome with emotion. After a good cry, I checked back and noticed it had been almost an hour since he'd posted. Feel his anguish, I overreacted.

I wholeheartedly support your no-meeting-strange-men-from the internet policy. But, now we know he cooks scallops and is capable of being in a long-term committed relationship. (I think it's Susan's fault. Don't you?) He doesn't sound so strange. Why don't you reconsider?

Young love...sigh.

Al,

If you thought the Houston evacuation traffic jams were bad...

--Cobra

rpl,

OK, I was with you right until the end.

If I truly "completely missed" markm's point (markm? You there?) I rather agree with most of your explanation. (Perhaps it was the word "threat" that threw me. And the clear implication that the *drivers* were the threat -- not their cars.) In any event, I couldn't agree more with your "we all make calculated risks" argument. Of course we do.

But I still take issue your "it is only when we have become so overwrought with emotion that we are afraid to ask such questions..." By then we're truly toast. I certainly agree emotions can cloud our judgement (though I'd appreciate a clarification between emotion overwrought-ness and, well, fear), I still maintain that making risk calculations based on terrorist bluster -- which was, I believe, this post's point -- is proof they've wormed into our brains.

This is getting fairly nuanced, but thanks for the opportunity to defend my POV. I hope you all took the subway regardless.

Rpl: Thanks for carrying the argument with a much more detailed post than I ever get the time to write.

Comments are Closed.