I was out hiking last night. I was testing my new Watkins Aviation flashlight, which I like for it's desired use very much. I almost walked on top of a skunk family. I was more involved with another new toy than my immediate environment, national concerns over local, and unlikely but possible threats over the probable.<br><br>

LOL!<br><br>What a great lesson: Prepare for the probable first, and once you've got that covered, THEN slowly begin expanding your preparations out to the merely possible. Despite recent reminders and current situations, we're STILL more likely to have a traffic accident and need a first aid kit than we are to be hijacked by terrorists and need to improvise weapons in an airplane cabin. <br><br>Thanks Chris!<br><br>Stay safe,<br>J.T.

Well said. To put your thought another way, the statistics show that you are still far mor likely to get killed in a traffic accident on your way to the airport than you are to die in an airline crash. Yet everyone is terrified to fly right now, but more than happy to jump into the flow of traffic.<br><br>If only the terrorists could somehow trick us into routinely driving while reading the newspaper, talking on the phone, drunk, etc. Then they could really rack up a body count. <br><br>Wait a minute. We already do that. Nevermind.<br><br>

I loved Chris’ story, and there is a lesson there… but it may not be all that simple, really.<br><br>Climbers sometimes analyze “danger” as the product of two components, which are often labeled “risk” and “exposure”.<br><br>Risk is the chance that a given move will result in a fall (you’ll “come unstuck”). Exposure is the distance that you will fall if you do.<br><br>Reducing either one to minimum may result in an acceptable level of danger. You can try very risky moves at 3 feet off the ground. At 300 feet, much, much less risk is acceptable.<br><br>This analysis works for almost all fields.<br><br>Chris pointed out that his mind was on low-risk hazards and he forgot a higher-risk hazard, but that’s only half the story. It's also true to say that his mind was on very high-exposure hazards, and he had forgotten a relatively low-exposure hazard.<br><br>In Chris’ story, the “exposure” he faced was getting sprayed by a skunk. In crossing the street, the “exposure” we face is our own life. In driving, possibly one or two others as well.<br><br>Things changed last week- now, we are talking about “exposure” in thousands of lives. If we’re discussing biological terrorism in cities, millions of lives.<br><br>When assessing danger, if you forget one of the two factors, your assessment is likely to be very wrong, though it may still sound right when stated in English.<br><br><br>

An excellent model. It clearly and explicitly states the sort of balancing I know I do in my head when planning my own preparations. Thank you for describing it in such useful words.<br><br>Stay safe,<br>J.T.

Aw, man chris you defenitaly need the gask mask!<br><br>

Ron, I allready had the mask of inattention on. <br><br>

No. His friends and family would need it!<br><br>Willie Vannerson<br>McHenry, IL

Jet (JT),<br><br>Thanks for the kind words.<br><br>While I'm at it, let me also say that the participants of this forum can be justly proud of the level of civility here. It's much higher, for those who haven't noticed, than the average on the net in general... and much appreciated.<br><br>