I agree that to the people that are in that small percentage that could go either way in a disaster - die or survive - based on their preparation ANY amount of worry and stress is worth it.

I also agree that on a state/federal level the government should be preparing for sure.

My real question is how much of a persons life do they waste worrying about being that small percentage of people in a disaster that will survive or die based on how prepared they are?

And is that worth it? I don't really have an answer. For me it is not worth it. I choose not to prepare or stress about natural disasters, germ fears, new sicknesses, killer bee's, etc. For me, I weigh up the amount of time people spend worrying about those things, compared to what would happen if I died from one of those events, and I think its a safe bet that even if I did die I would have still devoted more time to enjoying life than if I spent my time worrying about dying.

But that works for me, and I don't suggest it for a national policy. I was just curious how other people balanced it out.

Well, l disagree with your assertion elsewhere that the vast majority spend any significant amount of time being concerned about this. lt takes about twenty minutes max to pack up the kind of kit that will get through the aftermath of a disaster, and that's about all you can do. l think the vast majority of Seattleites are practical enough to throw something like this together, and then leave it alone and hope it saves their lives when they need it. l think your main opinion here is based on the false assumption that this holds any significant weight in their day to day lives. That just doesn't seem to be the case with any more than a few alarmists who wake up every day with the same sinking feeling they're going to die, and/or that they aren't prepared enough to survive.

Everyone worries at some point about dying; either they or someone they love has a close call, or something happens that causes their mortality to snap to the foreground. This may make a positive or negative difference in their perception, or not at all. But recognizing that some take it to an unhealthy extreme doesn't mean that the opposite response of simply not packing some food, water and valuables is the correct one either. lt's like a teen who gives the finger to his safety because he thinks he'll *never* die. lt's ho more healthy than assuming every cold will put him in the grave. Neither make much sense.

By dismissing the idea of being prepared at all, you automatically (and actively) improve your chances, especially in those cases where all that stands between life and death is a bottle of water, an energy bar, and a whistle. Tell me, does washing your hands after using a public bathroom constitute an out of control neurosis about germs or it a reasonable response to preventing more illness in an environment where the risk of illness is likely to be higher?

When I say worry about natural disasters, I guess I am being a little too specific. This question was prompted from the natural disaster theme going on here, but I am really talking about fear of very statistically unlikely events in general. Whether it is natural disasters or getting a deadly flu, killer bee's, Anthrax, terrorists, something in your kitchen that will kill you if you eat it, etc. etc.

I think that a large part of our society spends some pretty significant time worrying, planning, talking, and stressing about events that are so statistically unlikely to occur to them, that they waste a lot of their time.

Of course, with Earthquakes here in this area, there is a real possibility of it happening, so spending some time being concerned and prepared is justified.

A really great article that I read in Psychology today explained it better than I can:

"Fear skews risk analysis in predictable ways.

Fear hits primitive brain areas to produce reflexive reactions before the situation is even consciously perceived. Because fear strengthens memory, catastrophes such as earthquakes, plane crashes, and terrorist incidents completely capture our attention. As a result, we overestimate the odds of dreadful but infrequent events and underestimate how risky ordinary events are. The drama and excitement of improbable events make them appear to be more common. The effect is amplified by the fact that media tend to cover what's dramatic and exciting, Slovic notes. The more we see something, the more common we think it is, even if we are watching the same footage over and over."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200712/10-ways-we-get-the-odds-wrong

Okay, I understand you better now. Overall, l agree with your clarification. Generally, yes, l think this is fear-mongering society, and is susceptible to all kinds of frightening propaganda regurgitated by the media. Does the preparation balance out if someone is compulsively driven to avoid unlikely events by what is essentially paranoid schizophrenia? No, but then that kind of compulsion is indicative of a lapse in mental health.

Does it balance out when taking precautionary measures against something that IS likely to happen, however -and despite mental health- l'd wager that the overprepared are still better off than those who don't prepare at all.

Okay, I understand you better now. Overall, l agree with your clarification. Generally, yes, l think this is fear-mongering society, and is susceptible to all kinds of frightening propaganda regurgitated by the media. Does the preparation balance out if someone is compulsively driven to avoid unlikely events by what is essentially paranoid schizophrenia? No, but then that kind of compulsion is indicative of a lapse in mental health.

Does it balance out when taking precautionary measures against something that IS likely to happen, however -and despite mental health- l'd wager that the overprepared are still better off than those who don't prepare at all.

Yeah, if something is objectively likely to happen - then it only makes sense to prepare. Of course, I have been hearing about our huge earthquake that will destroy all of Seattle since I was about 14 - still waiting. But yeah, for the things that are likely to occur people should take precautions.

For the things that people THINK are likely to occur, but really aren't - the vast majority of people waste a lot of time and energy. The trick is determining what is likely to occur and what isn't, and I think our society tends to come down on the "it's likely to occur, and it's gonna occur RIGHT NOW OMG" side of that equation.

Again, l agree, but you keep saying 'vast majority'. While l think *some* of our society falls for this bullshit, more and more, l meet people who are -pardon the redundant expression, but it fits- unwilling to drink the Koolaid. l mean, l honestly have not had a single conversation with any of my circle but my dad who worries about the stuff you mention here. They're not bothered that much, and neither does anyone else l know socially. l'm not trying to be argumentative, l just don't think speaking for the vast majority is doing the vast majority much justice in this particular discussion - especially when the general understanding here is that those prone to irrational panic are either seriously ill, gullible, or uninformed.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I just think that a larger portion of our society does buy into this than we are really aware of. None of my friends do either, but where I used to work a LARGE number of the employees did buy into this kind of thing - and not just sometimes, but they would swing to each new fear every month.

I don't feel like that was an unusual situation - I feel like the vast majority of America, the America that watches news, frets about their children, etc. etc. does buy into this stuff.

But, that is just a guy feeling. I don't have any statistics to back that one up.

The vast majority/tends to come down on thing:
Depends where I'm standing and who I'm looking around at - Here on the Hill I think most of us bluestate queerish types aren't panicked by the cable news. 20 miles east or north or south, I might agree with basil...
Looking at a census of the nation though...that could be hard call. The patriot act got passed, which seems proof Basil's right. But Obama is president on a Hope platform, which gives credence to Freikja's opinion that it's not the vast majority.
Tell you what, I think Fre nails it when she says "more and more". The truth may be it's a liquid chrono-affected state: The fear needle is dialing down as time passes. The kool aid is stale.
One caveat though: in that hypothetical census there's some folks scared to participate. THEY are exactly the types to be scared of bees, earthquakes, etc... and skew the results.

http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=QC-WORRY&Category_Code=QC

and
"he should consider relocating somewhere that isn't prone to them."
That pretty much HAS to be Seattle, though... we've got one of the lowest serious-disaster rates don't we?