Not really. This is a bit fuzzy, but based on these two cites, the risk of death on any given flight is one in 7 million, while chance of death while driving is a little over 1 per 100 million miles. So, any trip over 15 miles is more likely to kill you than an air flight.
All this is a hijack to a thread about conservative fears about higher education, but there is a legit debate in the air safety biz about whether the “best” measure of risk is per flight, per mile, per passenger-flight, or per passenger-mile.
Each paints a different picture of the risks being run. Some measures work better than others for specific questions from specific POVs.
No matter which way you slice it, the airline journey is several orders of magnitude safer than driving when both are measured using the same metric.
True, although the hijack is actually somewhat relevant in that the same kind of effect is in play that makes people think airplanes are dangerous and conservatives are whipped and mocked on campus. A relatively small number of incidents are amplified by news exposure to warp the perception that they are far more common than they are.
This is called availability. Since news about air crashes makes more headlines and gets more coverage than news about car crashes, there is a tendency to think them more common. The same goes with suicides versus murders - suicides don’t get covered. And why some people are fooled by local news coverage of crimes to think the crime rate is a lot higher than it is.
I have no idea where this idea that liberals hate GM food while conservatives can’t get enough comes from. Perhaps they’re using anecdotal data. 
I’m pro nuclear power, but I don’t think opposition is just an emotion based thing; there are legitimate concerns eg what do we do with the waste and what are the risks of that?
It’s a nuanced topic to debate and discuss, not like anti vax BS or whatever.
True. Some topics are more like conspiracy theories, and others are influenced by emotion but also are a legitimate topic for debate.
Maybe because GM food is often banned in ‘socialist’ Europe?
Well, that would be pretty stupid, since we’re discussing aspects of political parties in the US. Hell, straight from the OP:
Conservatives in the USA
So, those particular conservatives (I like to call them “them/they”) seem to have almost identical stances to GMOs as their liberal counterparts.
I didn’t say it makes sense, but that could be why they are linked in people’s minds.
It isn’t so much that it is a liberal irrational fear as it is not a strictly conservative irrational fear, like anti-vax. People with different political leanings may have come from this from different paths, but the end result is the same.
This is actually not all that unusual. The far right and the far left can come to some conclusions that are same but for very different reasons.
Heh, seems to be contagious. I spelled this wrong a week or so ago and asked why it looked funny and you were kind enough to set me straight. Sorry I messed up your spelling abilities! 