Last week, the New York Times Science section ran a column that posed the question: What is more dangerous – al Qaeda or homeland security?

Pointing to a recent study about cardiac health problems caused by anxiety, columnist John Tierney suggested that continuing elevated threat levels – and changes in security measures – may spur anxiety-based heart damage that harms more people than al Qaeda.

I’ll admit that I began to read the article expecting at the end it would be tongue in cheek. But this didn’t turn out to be satire. The Times seems to feel that where terrorism is concerned ignorance is, if not bliss, at least tranquility.

Of course, there are a couple of quick points to be made. Contrary to Mr. Tierney’s assertion, the United States Government does not frequently change the alert level, and when we do we explain as fully as possible why.

I could also point out that the Times’ advice suggests that the newspaper itself may be a bigger cause of anxiety-related heart disease, what with the recent reporting about foiled terrorist plots in Spain and Germany, and, less happily, the Bhutto assassination, and bombings in Pakistan and Algeria.

But I want to take the Times’ point more seriously, because it is an example (more obvious and outlandish than usual, perhaps) of an increasing strain of intellectual denial when it comes to terrorism.

As I have often said, our approach to terrorism must be balanced. Neither complacency nor hysteria is appropriate in dealing with a global struggle that will be with us for the foreseeable future. The right answer is to acknowledge the threat, manage the risk and make the necessary reasonable and cost-effective investments that we need to secure ourselves and respond if necessary. And averting our eyes from the threat of terrorism will seem very hollow when the abandonment of security leads to tragic losses that cannot be ignored

We certainly debate about what the right balance of security is, but does it make sense to pretend that what we read about doesn’t exist? When facts become uncomfortable or upsetting, should we ignore them? On the Times’ theory, we should also not discuss preparing for pandemic flu or major catastrophes.

The anxiety caused by a 21st century in which technology has given terrorists and militants unprecedented destructive capabilities is very real. The constructive approach to that anxiety however, is not to wish it away or pretend that it doesn’t exist. The correct approach is to confront the danger, be transparent about the facts, and build real capabilities that assure us that we have maximized our chances of averting or minimizing harm. These are the kinds of behaviors that calm--rather than promote--anxiety.

Ignoring the danger leads neither to bliss nor tranquility. Rather, we should recognize that in a world where man-made and natural hazards exist, the most constructive outlet of anxiety is to motivate solid, intelligent, and balanced preparation.

Michael Chertoff