> raw fatality numbers are about the worst possible value to use when comparing two things and how dangerous they are.
Go back and re-read my post.
I am not -in the least- interested in measuring the absolute danger level of something per minute (see the volcano example). I am interested in much danger that is for me, or my family, or my neighbor (I don't worry about volcanos).
The total is already the combination of danger per minute and rate of usage thought society.
> or you can do a risk analysis from a cost/benefit point of view, but there you again can't just compare the cost, you would have to quantify the benefits of the particular tool/technology.
My whole point in this discussion is that using toaster analogies with cars is pointless. Cars are far more dangerous, as in `the actual likelihood one will suffer from it in the next 12 months`.