Do your think terrorism or heart disease is more dangerous?

Answer 1

People have a 1-in-5 chance of dying of heart disease in their lifetime. The odds of being the target of a terrorist act is over 1-in-500,000... probably closer to 1-in-1,000,000 given the actual frequency of attacks in the U.S. or Europe.

So I'd say heart disease. ;-)

Answer 2

I do worry about terrorism, but the chances of Al-Qaida targetting the small town where I live are pretty slim. My chances of having a heart attack are far greater.
A few of you may have been the victim of terrorism or you know someone who has been. But everyone has been affected by heart disease, either directly or indirectly. In other words, you either have it or know someone who has.
All in all, heart disease still kills far more people than terrorism. So, that makes it more dangerous.

Answer 3

The idea of terrorism is a panopticon of violence.
You don't know who will be a target.
But you do know how to prevent heart disease.

I don't know what I'm saying exactly... but I've argued that fast food is a weapon of mass destruction, so, there you have it: Considering no terrorist has the power to kill like a greasy restaurant chain.

Answer 4

In peaceful times, heart attack because terrorist attacks are scarce; however, some psycho may decide just to kill the whole human population by biological or nuclear warfare.

Answer 5

What we really have to watch out for is the terrorists with heart disease.

(And waterproof phones.)