January 27, 2005 | Ready or not

Last night, while attempting to make breakfast for dinner (eggs, hash browns and toast taste good anytime), I found that the gas had been turned off in my apartment.

It turned out to be no big deal, just something overlooked by some guys working for my landlord.

But it got me to thinking about disaster kits, partly since I was considering going to the basement to get out my camping stove to make myself some coffee.

Given I live in San Francisco, I really should have a disaster kit, with water, food and provisions for when the big one hits. My main stumbling block comes in knowing where to store it. Do I keep it in the basement or in the second floor apartment or at my one-story office a few blocks away?

I also got to thinking about the new Homeland Security preparedness guide put out by DHS this week. They are asking real estate agents around the country to distribute the guide when selling houses.

It's a good enough guide (.pdf) so far as it goes, with the appropriate instructions on preparing water, food and a communications plan.

I'm not technically qualified to comment on the mask recommendations in the report and while its hard not to snicker at the duct tape and plastic sheeting section, for all I know, that might actually help in the case of a chemical attack.

But the document is lacking one very key element, whose absence is present here in the booklet's opening paragraphs.

Potential Threats: Terrorists are working to obtain biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological weapons, and the threat of an attack is very real. Here at the Department of Homeland Security, throughout the federal government, and at organizations across America, we are working hard to strengthen our Nation’s security and to reduce our vulnerability to emergencies of all kinds.

Whenever possible, we want to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. All Americans should begin a process of learning about potential threats so we are better prepared to react during an attack, natural disaster or other emergency. While there is no way to predict what will happen, or what your personal circumstances will be, there are simple things you can do now to prepare yourself and your loved ones. Some of the things you can do to prepare for a terrorist attack, such as assembling a supply kit and developing a family communications plan, are the same for both a natural or man-made emergency. However, as you will read in this brochure, there are important differences among potential terrorist threats that will impact the decisions you make and the actions you take. With a little planning and common sense, you can be better prepared for the unexpected.

What's missing here is risk assessment.

Americans -- or maybe humans generally -- are particularly bad at deciding what is risky and what is not. For instance, most people are more afraid of dying in a plane crash than in car crash, though the latter are way more common. Some 40,000 people die in automobile crashes every year. That risk is higher both on a per-trip basis and a per-mile basis.

It's also true that most Americans have little to fear from a terrorist strike, whether that be a dirty bomb, a car bomb or an attack on a chemical plant.

Those living in urban areas are certainly at the highest risk, and people who live near chemical and nuclear plants should take precautions, not just because of the possibility of a terrorist attack, but also because Bhopal or Three Mile Island could happen again.

But for most people, including suburbanites who don't live or work in a city, the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is virtually nil.

But the pamphlet makes no mention of such thinking anywhere.

Not advising people to make a logical assessment of their risk level is simply irresponsible and alarmist.

Imagine if this were a health advisory. Should everyone go get checked for sickle cell anemia, HIV, prostate cancer or breast cancer? Of course not.

Should it be the policy of the government to encourage doctors to hand out pamphlets on what to do in the case of an Ebola virus outbreak to every patient? What about syphilis?

Sure, we should all know about the possibility of Ebola virus outbreak or the risks of contracting HIV through unprotected sex, but the former is extremely rare and the latter is most likely to strike certain populations.

I assume that one reason that DHS did not include any discussion of risk-assessment is to make sure they are covering their ass. But that CYA contributes to a climate of unnecessary fear that is disproportionate to the real risks our country faces from radical fundamentalist terrorists and homegrown right-wing separatists.

While I am not suggesting that DHS is intentionally trying to scare people, widespread fear does serve the department's institutional goals (all organizations strive to keep themselves relevant and well-funded).

Suggesting, if only by omission, that the good folks in Miles City, Montana need to worry as much about fallout from a dirty bomb as those who live in the nation's capital is irresponsible, scare-mongering, even if it is unintentional.

The ongoing national conversation about terrorism deserves better from the folks who brought you ready.gov.

Posted by Ryan Singel at January 27, 2005 10:33 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.secondaryscreening.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/106