REM@IMSSS (Robert Elton Maas, this host known locally only) (01/30/86)
Today on the news a comparison was made between the loss of the Challanger and other disasters of the past which affected people intensely: Hindenburg, Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt's death, Kennedy assassination. I would like to offer some rebuttal to the apparent claim that all five are of equal impact. Only Pearl Harbor involved great loss of life, Challenger was only 7, Roosevelt&Kennedy were one each (and Roosevelt was no surprise, he had been sick for a long time), Hindenburg deaths were mostly due to jumping because low-pressure hydrogen in air burns at a low temperature and if they hadn't panicked they would mostly have survived. Pearl harbor was 3 years before I was conceived, but from hearing about it second hand I'd rank it in terms of human loss as a much greater sudden disaster for the US than anything else in the list. The newscasters who were emphasizing human loss had no right to compare the explosion of the Challanger to Pearl Harbor as they did without mentionning the orders of magnitude difference in human life. Furthermore, if they care about human lives, hundreds of civilians die each year from airplane crashes, and hundreds die each week from automobile crashes. If anyone considers STS not safe enough for civilians, how about banning civilians from airlines and cars until they can be made safe?? Now consider the special people who died. One popular civilian died, but then Rickey Nelson died a month ago and he was popular too. Why wasn't Rickey Nelson or John Lennon compared to Christa McAuliffe, instead of our presidents (Roosevelt/Kennedy)? Since all are primarily media people rather than functional units of our government, I think that kind of comparison would have been more appropriate. When Kennedy was shot I was worried that Cuba had paid the assassin and we'd go to world war over it. With the schoolteacher in Challanger, there was no such worry, just one more sadness over a liked person dying unexpectedly like John Lennon or Sam Cooke (singer died in barroom fight) or Johnny Horton (singer died in plane crash). But where I see the explosion of the challanger as being more significant is in capability lost. Here the comparison to Pearl Harbor is valid. The attack on Pearl Harbor didn't just kill hundreds of staff aboard the sunk ships and on land, but mostly wiped out our military capability in the whole Pacific ocean. Fortunately one major part of our fleet wasn't there and didn't get lost, or we might have ended up being invaded by Japan during the war. But it was a really major military capability lost unmatched in all our other national disasters. The explosion of the Challanger has destroyed a major fraction of our manned space capability, a very important satellite for our space program, and cast doubt on our safety which will probably cause some companies to retract their reservations. Also there's bound to be a several-month delay. Because we have no unmanned launch capability (almost whatsoever; just a few recycled ICBMs and plans to build some new Titans or somesuch, but absolutely nothing in production currently), our whole space program is stopped for as many months as it takes to debug STS, and slowed by a quarter for at least five years it takes to replace the lost spacecraft. Either the loss of our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor or the loss of our space capability this week is much more serious than the mere loss of important or loved individual people, in terms of overall national capability. It's faster and cheaper to train LBJohnson to be President or some new schoolteacher to fly in space, than it is to replace Challanger and TDRS-B. Yes, everytime somebody we know and care about dies it's sad, but TV news are comparing apples and oranges on the basis of their use as baseballs and ignoring their nutritional content or flavor. I think that by treating only the human-death aspect, but by comparing Pearl Harbor and Challenger-Seven as co-equals, ignoring automobiles etc., and televising interviews of children who are upset, they are creating a "media event" that greatly exaggerates the human-loss that occurred and unfairly casts a bad light on the manned space program. (editorial by REM) P.s. I'm thinking of writing a letter to the editor saying that if anyone considers stopping the space program because 7 died trying to get to space, or not allowing civilian passengers, then certainly the same argument applies moreso to commercial airlines and private automobiles and cigarettes, all of which kill vastly more people on a regular basis. I wonder how harsh or cynical I can get by with without being counterproductive. BC> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 16:07:01 EST BC> From: "Bob Czech" <939@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET> BC> Subject: The Press parasites BC> It's been about 4 hours since the Challenger blew up and the BC> most disgusting aspect of this whole accident is the way the press BC> has handled it. This is usually the problem that most people find BC> with great tragedies. Nothing bothered us more here at CCCC more BC> than the way that ABC, descretely (said in REAL sarcasm), enabled BC> us to view the teacher's parents as the Challenger ascended and BC> then after the explosion. It's one thing to drag out an apparent BC> accident, but another to feed and use upon human emotions as they BC> did. They did the same with Three-Mile-Island which involved no loss of life at all (except due to cancer caused by coal that replaced TMI). I agree with your derogatory opinion of that aspect of TV coverage. It was, however, encouraging to hear interviews with several people who compared this to the expedition lost at the South Pole and on Everest, and Madam Curie getting leukemia for her work with Radium, etc. I thought that part was really good. Too bad they have so much crap the rest of the time. By the way, did anyone on this list happen to see the launch&explosion live (in person, not on TV feed)?
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (01/31/86)
In article <8601301631.AA04783@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes: >Today on the news a comparison was made between the loss of the >Challanger and other disasters of the past which affected people >intensely: Hindenburg, Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt's death, Kennedy >assassination. I would like to offer some rebuttal to the apparent >claim that all five are of equal impact. > >Only Pearl Harbor involved great loss of life, Challenger was only 7, >Roosevelt&Kennedy were one each (and Roosevelt was no surprise, he had >been sick for a long time), Hindenburg deaths were mostly due to >jumping because low-pressure hydrogen in air burns at a low >[etc etc including comparisons with traffic fatalities, popular singers, >more detailed comparison with Pearl Harbor, and more media bashing] The media rushes into a news vacuum, and you now rebroadcast the same vacuum? Please, please, don't even bother. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720