Correct Risk Assessment With Math

So, let's say you live in a place that's in the "100 Year" flood plain.
That means you don't have to worry about a flood until 2108, right? WRONG.

You see, a 100 Year Flood does not mean every 100 years, there's a flood, it means that in any given year, your chances of having a monster flood is 1%.

It also means that each year you live in a place, you're increasingly at risk of experiencing the 1% event - in fact, if you live in the same place for 50 years, you have a 50% chance of experiencing a 100 yer flood (same goes for 25 years = 25%, etc. with the 100 year flood example)

So it is with this in mind that you need to do your situation and risk assessment profile. Are you preparing for unlikely risks?

For example, in 2003 about 45,000 Americans died in motor accidents out of population of 291,000,000. So, according to the National Safety Council this means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ about 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83. Gee, that's worth being prepared with a seatbelt and defensive driving classes.

But just how "equipped" do you need to be for a terrorist attack?

If terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in one million or more. If terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.

Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of 9/11 , that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.

You're at greater risk from your slippery bathroom floor than an earthquake, even if you live in California.

Always try to be rational. It will save you money and emotional wear and tear.

Martin, help me with the math here--zombies? I've tried looking but I can't seem to find a reliable risk for a sudden outbreak of zombies or the undead. I hear so many people mention them and how they need lots of guns in anticipation. I don't want to be left unprepared.

All kidding aside, it's always good to be reminded of the "real" risks out there. Unfortunately, statistics are boring. They're not interesting like zombies.

It is inevitable, Mr. Arney.

While your argument holds up for people in general. It may not hold up for any given person. With the right mind-set and actions a person can reduce his or her risk considerably.

I’m sure the example above relating to auto death plays on the collective, not a person that uses a seat belt all the time, drives an appropriate speed for any given situation, practices defensive driving and situational awareness.


As far as terrorist and shopping malls, terror by it’s nature depends on a large body count to be shown on the news. To be much safer while shopping, go to the mall during slow times when others don’t. A terrorist is much more likely to strike at a busy time. Also I seldom go to malls as other stores fill my needs. My mall / terrorist risk is much lower then most peoples as I seldom go there.

This risk management can (and should) be applied to a large amount of given situations.

Inevitable, huh? So that's, what? Like a 90% chance? Sorry...dumb math humor...

The highest correlation of a visit from the Grim Reaper is actually based on the level of household income. There is a very strong correlation between premature death and a persons income. The Grim Reaper visits those folks more often at the bottom end of the income distribution curve. If you do not want a visit from the Grim Reaper, from an actuaries point of view, the answer is 'don't be poor' or 'don't live in an area, where there are poor people', because the Grim Reaper knows your income and he knows where you live - a bit like the IRS. The greater the inequality in incomes the greater the difference in the life expectancy rates between the rich and the poor.

This is even true in countries where, free at the point of use, universal health care systems are available, although they do go some way in masking the link between premature death rates and low incomes.

It could be even said that countries which have less income inequality actually spend less on healthcare as a proportion of GDP simply because the Grim Reaper has less opportunity to go visiting at the bottom end of the income distribution because the bottom end isn't actually there.

Ask the Kennedy’s, Sunny Bono or John Denver what they think of this…


My point is risky behavior comes to all people regardless of class. Risk like running for public office, flying planes you are not really familiar with and skiing down a mountain at high speeds, flying homemade planes.

There are poor and rich people that manage risk well, just as there are poor people and rich people that engage in risky behavior or even in normal things that may be better managed to a lower risk.





I don’t think most of us here fall into a lot of the high risk areas as much as most people do. We are somewhat more aware and willing to take a look at our actions and possibly change them to safeguard ourselves and that of our families.


After 9/11 I can’t understand how anyone can comfortably go to work in a building that is any taller then a fire truck ladder can reach.

This is a topic that has long fascinated me. Not that long ago, I saw a new 7-part documentary on PBS about this topic that was outstanding. If you ever get a chance to see the series Unnatural causes...is inequality making us sick? on TV, please try and watch it. Health involves far more than just eating right, getting some exercise, and taking the right prescription pills.

How did you model that? Sounds like a Poisson distribution but you need some inputs for it.

Beside the point. Survival prep is a hobby, like stamp-collecting or bird-watching. Except its more fun than either, and chicks dig it more. The person in this village who contributes the most to local survival is the person who runs the water treatment plant-saves us all from giardia and guinea worms. But is he having fun? Do chicks dig potable water processing? Heck no. When we identify a threat scenario to address, we do it based not on probability, but on severity and how cool the gear is. That's why we have 20 page threads on knives and guns, and zilch on high fiber diets or hypertension.

"There is a very strong correlation between premature death and a persons income."

More than you know. If crowded shopping malls are terrorist targets, only the people who can afford to shop at the malls (or work there) are likely to be victims. I'm pretty safe.

Only people who can afford to fly are likely to be involved in terrorist takeover of planes. I'm pretty safe.

I can't remember the last time I was in a high-rise, although the floor of my mobile home is about three feet (1m) off the ground. Since I live in a town that has one whole signal light, you may correctly assume that there aren't many high-rises around here. I'm pretty safe.

I just hope I'm not on the Alaskan Way Viaduct in ANY kind of an earthquake. It's predicted to be the first thing to go down.

I live in the county that is said to be the meth lab center of WA. Sooooo, there is a reasonably good possibility of a zombie attack.

It's always something.

Sue

Excellent points - While slipping in the tub or a car crash isn't as 'sexy' as a tsunami, both are many factors more likely. Plan for the likely and the realistic:

- fire extinguisher, smoke ( and co2) alarms, evacuation plan
_ take care of your health
_Use common sense

Just a few pointers to start


( ans those 100 year floods? They seem to be hitting about every 20 years...)

ROFL!!!! I was just thinking the same thing myself- it isn't much fun to scrub the tub. It is fun to prep for a flood. Even more for zombies.

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.


Zombie prep takes expensive and cool toys…

I think on an individual level survivial is a binary equation. You get in your car and you make it to your destination or you don't. Your plane crashes or it doesn't. You don't live 98% of the time and die 2% of the time. You either live or die. Group statistics do not mean much on an individual basis.

Thats why I don't worry about my truck being EMP proof or things like that, I see the chances of that being very slim. I looked for the safest vehicle to commute in and had to weigh the safety standards, for example unibody cars test safer in a single car accident such as falling asleep or being drunk and running off the road but frame vehicles are safer in multi car accidents where you get hit by or hit another car. Since I don't drive while sleepy, drunk, etc my chances of being in the single car accident are slimmer then the chances of being hit by someone else.

I used to have a conversation similar to this with my DW every time I took off on a climbing, canyoneering or solo backpacking trip. I always told her that she was more likely to get in trouble on the local speedw.... er, freeway than I was in the backcountry of AZ, UT, etc.

Every time a hiker gets in trouble it makes the national news & yet auto accidents kill folks in droves.

This seemed fuzzy to me. Thankfully, I work in a research institute, and there is a world-class mathematician sitting one office away who was willing to take a look at it.

So, if you live in this flood plain for fifty years, what you actually have are fifty chances of a 1% event. That's not the same as a 50% chance.

Imagine you are flipping a coin, and it comes up heads 99 times in a row. What's the probability it will come up heads again? It seems low, but it's actually still 50%, because the final flip (experiment) is completely unaffected by the prior 99.

To figure out the actual probability of a flood over a fifty year period, you'd have to know whether or not there was any correlation between the chance of a flood and the length of time between floods. I don't think there is, but unfortunately we don't have meteorologists here. If there is no correlation, nothing that increases the risk if, say, there hasn't been a flood in a decade, then your risk remains 1%, no matter how many years you live there.

Well said. This is why the mortality rate hasn't changed in the past ten thousand years: one per person.

Given this, it is important that every one believe in something: I believe I will have a beer.

I think (I could always be wrong ) that most folks have guns around for protection against violent crime more than zombies. It's the robber in the parking lot or home invasion that more folks worry about.

IMHO every able bodied male should own one in order to come to the defense of those less able to take care of themselves. They (guns) are just one of the tools that I think every man should own.

Although, in case of zombies, a gun would be especially nice to have around.

Actually, it is. You buy 2 tickets, your odds of winning are now 2:1,000,000, which is 1:500,000. That's why I always buy multiple tickets if I'm playing It would be completely different if you bought one ticket each week for two weeks.

To calculate the risk of flooding, you have to look at the chances of NOT flooding, which is 99%. To go 50 years without a flood is .99^50, or about 60%. That means you have about a 40% chance of a flood in any of those 50 years. I think. It's been a while so my math is fuzzy. If you really want to know probabilites and statistics, the best people to ask aren't statisticans, ask a gambler. They're like human statistic calculators.

Anyway, I think that's drifting away from the original point. One thing that isn't factored into the risk assesment is the severity of the consequences. Two families might both have the same risk of power outages, but if one is in northern Canada in the middle of winter, they have more to worry about than someone living in California.

If your single lottery ticket has say 49 numbers and the winning number sequence is 6 numbers in length the odds of winning are 49!/((49-6)! x 6!) = 13,983,816 to 1 odds.

If a second lottery ticket is purchased with a different winning sequence then all that has happened is that you have purchased another 6 number sequence reducing your odds to (49!/((49-6)! x 6!))-1 = 13,983,815 to 1 odds

If the aim was to get a 5 number winning sequence from 49 numbers then the odds of winning are 49!/((49-5)! x 5!) = 1,906,884 to 1 odds

Actually what you are better of doing is ensuring that if you place a single line i.e. a single $1 bet with odds of say 13,983,816 at least make sure the winning pot of money total is actually greater than the probability of winning and then only placing just the single 1$ bet. i.e. if the pot rolls over.

"IMHO every able bodied male should own one in order to come to the defense of those less able to take care of themselves. They (guns) are just one of the tools that I think every man should own."

OH... REALLY ???!!!

And what about the other half of the population?

What happens if DaddyO isn't home?

Please allow me to embellish your statement a bit:

IMHO every able bodied person over the age of 10 should own, and be trained in the use and safety of, a firearm, so they can take care of themselves and those who set their weapon down to fix dinner or change a tire.

HOWZAT?

Sue

I am a statistics major but rusty....that is why I asked if the original post was modeled on a Poisson distribution..can you ask your colleague if that is what he did?

Thanks

You go, girl! I've always considered the females of our species to be potentially far more dangerous than the males, given the proper motivation.

Jeff

PMS??????

Yes... REALLY!!!

I knew (unfortunately) that someone would take my statement as a comprehensive statement of who should/shouldn't own a firearm and let it get under their skin. It was not meant in that way and I certainly did not want to offend anyone but (to be perfectly honest) I get tired of trying to make everything so PC as not to offend anyone on the planet.

Susan, I apologize if the statement bothered you. It was not meant in the way you received it.

I'll crawl back under my rock now since I am obviously not cut out for online conversations.

Think finding yourself between a sow Grizzly and her cubs. Or Shakespeare. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

Jeff

My ROI (return on investment) in lottery tickets is immediate. I just enjoy the fun of thinking about winning. It's a way to daydream away a long, boring drive, for example. I have zero expectation of actually winning.

Jeff

Heh - he wasn't even going that fast, he was just unlucky, or sking over his head (ow, bad pun, but I'll leave it)

I used to downhill - only local club racing, but still. 60+MPH on skis is "fast" One day (the year after my worst fall) I was sking along at the fastest part of the run, and the little voice inside my head said "this is nuts", and I came up out of the crouch - the coach said he knew it was over for me at that instant

(BTW - worst fall - went down at 60MPH, and bounced for at least 100 yds - the called for a litter before I stopped bouncing! I walked away, I was VERY luck I didn't hit anything, but slid straight down the middle of the run. Nothing broken, but I think the only parts of me that weren't black and blue the next day were the soles of my feet, and my eyelids)

I've watched the movies, so I know its canon, but I've always wondered why a gun/rifle can take a zombie down. They're undead, right? Is there some threshold of bodily integrity that switches off their groaning ability?

Oh, don't be silly! If I can't say something like that occasionally, I'll lose my standing as the ETS resident... ah... witch.

I knew what you meant. I just couldn't let it pass.

I'll bet I'm less PC than you are, nyeah!

Sue

I agree with your math and reasoning Martin,,,,,,,,,,

I'm the one that if it can go wrong, or occur on my watch,, it will!!!!!!!!

I'm happy to hear that Sue. I don't post that often so I don't know the personalities behind the names. Maybe if I created more than 30 posts a year I would know folks better.

I will go so far as to say that only those who are willing to take on such responsibility, to make the appropriate commitment to learn and train and make a conscious decision that they won't pull the trigger until it is absolutely necessary, but that when it is necessary, they will not hesitate. This would exclude an awful lot of people in my opinion, especially a lot of folks who think they need a gun for something, but never really take it that seriously. I don't think anyone, including military personnel, should be required to own or possess a firearm. In fact, giving guns to people who shouldn't have them is worse than not arming them at all.

At what cost? We all die, sooner or later, but I mean, really, zombies aside, is ANY risk unacceptable? Aren't we the country that went to the moon? That was risky. People died trying. Did you ever swim in the ocean? That's risky - and fun.

I think that the "Fortress Me" attitude is debilitating and leads to all sorts of societal ills.

Excellent point. As I was playing soccer this Sunday with a bunch of 10-year-olds and getting my butt kicked, I thought about this very point. Physical endurance and fitness is so critical to personal longevity.

Fine words of wisdom there...

Really, since this is explicitly NOT a survivalist forum it does seem somewhat odd that so many people talk at length about stuff like weapons and self-defense (often expressing pretty strong opinions, too) but very little on the actual day-to-day preparedness stuff.

I for one would also appreciate more discussion on the down-to-Earth topics like working out and proper nutrition, considering that would save many, many more lives in the Western world than any amount of guns, flashlights and "ATAX" gizmos.

I've always felt sorry for people who keep several dozen guns at home plus 10 years' worth of supplies but are so obese and out of shape they would die of heart attack if they had to run a couple of miles... Good to keep things in a perspective.

Well, here's my typical day.

I'm an office worker, I wake at 5AM, and am on the road by 5:30. I walk (briskly) 2.4 miles a day (total) to and from the bus station in NYC to my office. I get home at about 7PM, eat dinner, put the kids to bed, deal with the household chores and/or bills or other domestic crises as needed, by then it's 10PM and time for bed. Tuesdays I have fire training drills. I haven't had time to watch a TV show at night since 1999, finding time to work out seems impossible. I play 2 hours of soccer as many Sundays as I can. I ride my bike now and then when it's warm. It's not enough and I know it.

So...here's the deal. Anyone here want to come up with a plan for me? I'll follow it, and even post pictures of the results over the next 12 months. I weigh 202 lbs now, I should weigh 170. I'm strong, bu in an anaerobic way. If I make - and maintain 170 - in the next 12 months, I'll donate $200 to ETS. Any fitness buffs want to remote coach me?

I wish I could help you Martin, truly I do. You just described my life, sort of.

I'm gone 30 days of sitting on my butt or sleeping, with eating just before I go to bed. I carry on your "home routine" for 15 days at home.

What I have done:
At work:
Eat a big breakfast (0530), go to bed, skip lunch (1200), have 4 pieces of buttered toast before I go to bed (1930). I have a couple of small Snicker's Bars during my 5 hr (morning) and 7 hr (afternoon) watch.

At Home:
Eat buttered toast and milk for breakfast, carry out a similar routine as yours although my "work" is at home. Have a sandwich, chips & dip, or fast food for lunch, have an evening walk or bicycle trip around the neighborhood, a light supper.

This seems to be helping at a slow rate. I've been working hard to reduce how much food I have been putting on my plate.

I am going to start "walking the tow" every morning, after breakfast.

I am slowly feeling better, making slow progress, but toning up nonetheless. I feel that there is an urgency for me to be prepared to walk a 1,000 miles very soon, to get home.

I'm trying to better my odds.

BTW, I just dug up my Appreciation Certificate from the 3rd Ranger Battalion & 7th Special Forces Group (A) to keep me focused on getting back into my lean fighting condition that I was in back in 1993!

Good Luck Brother!

The trouble with staying fit is that real life keeps getting in the way.

Sue

And a non-denominational Amen to that! Gave my back a twist the other day at work and it's taking a little longer to get back into the moving around regime...2 months into the new exercise pattern...but it's coming along.

You need active assistance for weight loss, in view of your obligations and schedule. Here's the plan: Walk each morning and evening to the nearest stream. Scoop up a sierra cup full of water. Drink water. No steripen, no miniworks, no chlorine. Just drink it.
Intestinal parasites. See recent thread on Giardia. These little helpers will compete with you for the excess calories in your gut, and provide appetite reduction and improved and speedier...um...throughput, along with an exercise regimen involving frequent sprints to the nearest porcelain convenience. The pounds will melt away. No, don't thank me-I exist to serve. And no pictures. For the love of god, no pictures.

Not PMS,,,REALITY!!!!! IMHO!!!!!

Very true Susan,,,,,,,And that's why I read every posting that you and the other ladies on ETS make.

I find that yours and the other ladies wisdom most welcome and treasured!!!!!!

Don't stop being yourself!!!!!