The Geomathematician wrote:
Say it with me: accidents...fatalities.
accidents...fatalities.
accidents...fatalities.
accidents...fatalities.
accidents...fatalities.
accidents...fatalities.
Notice how when you pronounce the little squiggles the right way, they sound different? Well that means that they are two different words! And these two words have two exciting different definitions! Isn't it fun to learn new words?!
Also, you're speculating that the authors didn't find every accident. Which sure, you can do, but realize it isn't good practice statistically, and calling my figures false is just a flat out lie. But then again, you're just a troll.
Here's an idea: instead of continuing this pointless argument, why not find a study which actually SUPPORTS your argument?
However many times you try to say it (wasn't it you pointing out the logical fallacy of repetition earlier?), your figures are false because you don't have anything to back them up with. The study I posedt makes no claim whatsoever to be a comprehensive record.
The difference between the number of fatalities and the number of accidents isn't the problem, the total number you are claiming for either or both is where the problem lies - you can't back that up as a definitive total (and one of the reasons I can say that DEFINITIVELY is because of the study that YOU posted - hence my hint about actually reading the links you post).