In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

This seems to be the bottom line: A slight increase in risk over
regular flying is one thing; a 100% increase in fatalities is
something different. Is it worth it?

100% of a small number is still a small number.

Assuming that 3 fatal accidents in 100,000 hours is correct, and that
the average age of an instrument rated pilot is about 40 years of age (I
saw the actual number in IFR recently and it's something like that) then
by flying 50 hours a year of IFR you're reducing your expected lifespan
by about a week.

If you're worried about it lose 10 pounds, limit yourself to two beers a
day, or floss every day. Statistically, the positive effects on your
expected lifespan of these acts dwarf the negative effect of flying IFR.