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>