Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (25912)	2/20/2008 12:37:12 PM
From: A.J. Mullen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

OT Earthquakes - Nicely put in context Peter, but as you know earthquakes aren't i.i.d. - the probability of an earthquake in the area is increasing each year it doesn't occur. That combined with your analysis suggests earthquakes might now be more dangerous than traffic in the area. Ashley

To: Biomaven who wrote (25912)	2/20/2008 8:51:55 PM
From: CrazyPete	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

OT -- I'm not sure I follow your math. The USGS gave a probability of 5% for a worst-case event with ~6000 fatalities in the next 30 years. That's a fatality rate of only 6000*0.05/30 = 10 per year. If you combine all the other more-likely scenarios with "a few hundred" fatalities -- say they add up to a 75% chance of ~500 deaths -- you still are under 25 deaths per year. Also the Bay Area has closer to 10% of statewide traffic fatalities. So it looks like the odds of being killed in a quake are less than 10% of the odds of dying in a traffic accident.