A Quick Summary from a Critical Thinking Point of View:
Heinrich is filled with errors
His Domino Causation Theory is absolutely invalid making any further use of his understanding of accidents and their results invalid
His Accident Proneness Chapter is without foundation
His researched “Raw Data” cannot stand the test of any modern diligence/valid study methodology
His observations of causation for The Foundation of Major Injury are only (at best) correlation and not proof of causation for any kind of Ratio
He writes that the ratio 1:29:300 both “may” and “will” produce his defined major injury
Anyone without a high level of critical thinking can accept that these major flaws don’t seriously impact the results observed. By modern standards the lack of rigor (both in collecting the data and the resulting statistical analysis) is so flawed it’s almost funny.
There are at least a few published concerns one has to ignore if we’re to accept such a bad study and resulting conclusion. BTW there are many myths that have survived the test of time even though there is much proof through proper science they are absolutely wrong (search Old Wives Tales).
The article referred to most certainly can be ignored if one chooses to be a non-critical thinker.
Even more concerns by others:
Bottom line, one has to ignore a GREAT DEAL of invalid data and argument to support the continued use of ANYTHING Heinrich proposed as being true.
Have some of the things he wrote about become clearer and useful? ABSOLUTELY but not because of Heinrich…