Suggest OddsBehind the Numbers: The Sharks and the Vending Machines
IStock Photo 4002608 © Shawn Gearhart
Book of Odds has recently addressed a much chewed-over Internet topic: what is more likely, to die from a shark attack or a vending machine accident? In terms of total victims, vending machines are deadlier. The odds a person will die from a vending machine accident in a year are 1 in 112,000,000, while the odds that a person will die from a shark attack in a year are 1 in 251,800,000. One can say with confidence that while vending machines crush an average of 2 to 3 unfortunate Americans every year, the number of recorded US shark fatalities is typically nil.
But it can't be stressed enough that the details matter. Big time. First of all, the average American's exposure to vending machines is significantly higher than his or her exposure to sharks. Essentially, only those who live on or visit the coasts and choose to swim will have any chance of being attacked by Jaws. The rest of the country—everyone who populates its larger, inner area—will have little to no exposure to sharks. Less exposure = lower probability. So a grain farmer’s likelihood of being chewed into chum is probably much, much lower than a skin diver’s—or worse, a shark whisperer's.
Vending machines are a different matter. They are everywhere. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates there are around 3 million beverage-vending machines in the US, or about 1 per 100 Americans. America's interior may be a shark-free zone, but it's bristling with vending machines.
At close proximity, a shark is much deadlier than a coin-operated refrigerator full of cold Sprite™. A vending machine, after all, doesn't have multiple rows of serrated teeth. A vending machine cannot make chase at 25 mph. A vending machine cannot smell your blood in quantities as low as one part per million. A vending machine doesn't possess the sense of electroreception, which sharks use to detect your body's weak electrical field. All a vending machine has is its tendency to fall towards Earth's center along with its allure as an object full of beverages and money and its occasional frustrating mechanical failure, all of which tempt some people into vigorously shaking one.
Sarcasm aside, it is important not to bend the above Odds Statements. Vending machines, yes, are deadlier on average. But sharks are far, far deadlier in particular. It's all a matter of exposure. Given a choice between the two, sidle up to the vending machine.
To read the original article, click here.
Comments (3)
Regarding xgaston's question, I saw a table in Scientific American which gave the relative risk of dying by travelling 10 billion km as 2.6 for automobiles and less than 0.1 for air travel. So, while planes are 26 times safer than cars by distance, they travel only about 13 times as fast, so are perhaps only half as dangerous per hour.
report abuseI echo Alexandra's post. Along similar lines, I wonder whether in making comparisons about the relative safety of air travel, statisticians remember to include exposure? I expect that if one were to calculate the number of miles travelled per person per year in an automobile and compared to the per capita travel by air, one would find that air travel is a lot more hazardous than what the ads say. My hypothesis is that the odds of dying in a plane are higher (or the same) if the exposure is similar to an automobile over a liftetime. What do you say?
report abuseI'm glad you addressed the issue of exposure. I was thinking, as I read the previous article, that my chances of being attacked by a shark would surely go up astronomically once I got in the water. I live in an area where sharks are plentiful, and Great Whites are not unknown, and I generally avoid swimming in the ocean. My chances of getting attacked by a shark may be pretty low while I'm in the ocean, but I'm betting the odds are close to zero when I'm swimming in the river.
report abuse