Gus wrote:

Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.

Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
happen.

A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.

Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
occuring.

This isn't a math ng, but this is simply wrong...the probability of
generating a value outside the set of possible integral results of any
discrete function is identically zero.

Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
both, was zero.

Yet, it DID happen.

After which the probability was identically one...the problem here is
that a hunch or opinion is not a mathematical probability and much
experiment has been done to show that people hold opinions of
likelihoods of events that are far from being mathematically
consistent...but, given the question you posed I don't really think most
would have actually said "zero" but given something on the order of
"highly unlikely".

LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
explaining the situation.

The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
statements like "zero chance".

Except, of course, when there really is zero chance, which in the case
of the potential for dust explosions is not identically zero. This
assertion detracts significantly from the point attempted to being made
as a cogent argument--it just isn't.