# Need help with risk assessment

• October 3rd, 2014, 03:50 PM
harplayer
Need help with risk assessment
Hi!

I do not know if this is the right section, I suppose the question has something to do with statistics and probability, sorry if I'm in the wrong section.

Do you think that someone who already lives in a place "x" with a 10 times higher chance of being hit by a very unlikely disaster (such as a plane crash) [so 10 ^ (- 6) instead of 10 ^ (- 7)] respect to a place "y", and that this guy absolutely does not want to die (obviously); should he move in y?
Or, despite the risks of x and y are apparently equal (excluding the disaster), in reality there may be risks difficult to assess that could make the relocation useless?

Thanks
• October 3rd, 2014, 05:24 PM
MagiMaster
If that's the only variable, then sure maybe the move would be worth it, but what about the dangers of moving? Or more significantly, all the other every-day dangers of the two places? BTW, there is a unit of measure to help work out such questions: Micromort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this case, you're asking is it worth moving to reduce your micromorts from that one source from 1 to 1/10. Well, add up all the other sources of danger for the two places and see if that difference of 0.9 is worth it. (It's less clear how to factor in the dangers from the one-time move itself.)
• October 3rd, 2014, 05:26 PM
MagiMaster
(Duplicate.)
• October 4th, 2014, 03:45 AM
harplayer
Quote:

Originally Posted by MagiMaster
If that's the only variable, then sure maybe the move would be worth it, but what about the dangers of moving? Or more significantly, all the other every-day dangers of the two places? BTW, there is a unit of measure to help work out such questions: micromort

In this case, you're asking is it worth moving to reduce your micromorts from that one source from 1 to 1/10. Well, add up all the other sources of danger for the two places and see if that difference of 0.9 is worth it. (It's less clear how to factor in the dangers from the one-time move itself.)

Aside from the risks of transfer, it would seem to me that it is the only variable.
But I suspect that perhaps there are other differences in the daily risks, but I can not see them because they are too small risks, and perhaps they are much more relevant than the distaster.
What do you think?
• October 4th, 2014, 04:00 AM
甘肃人
Is this like the old joke about the man who read that most accidents happen within ten miles of home, so he moved eleven miles away?
• October 4th, 2014, 04:43 AM
harplayer
Quote:

Originally Posted by 甘肃人
Is this like the old joke about the man who read that most accidents happen within ten miles of home, so he moved eleven miles away?

no lol
• October 4th, 2014, 05:53 PM
MagiMaster
Looking at the table on that Wiki page, there's a baseline average of 22 micromorts per day in the US, so reducing that by about 1 is only a few percent reduction. That page also estimates that 1 micromort is worth about \$50, which is probably a lot less than the move.

There are also some examples of other things that add 1 micromort, such as travelling 230 miles by car, moderate drinking (1/2 liter per day), or light smoking (1.4 cigarettes per day). So there are probably cheaper ways to improve your long term odds. (Those last two examples are probably better analyzed with the related unit of the microlife though since they're chronic factors and not sudden events: Microlife - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)