safety first

This is something I don’t understand about people who are facing eminent danger in natural disasters. Why do they insist on staying in their homes?

I think about the people who refused to leave their homes in spite of hours of warnings before Mt. St. Helens blew. They ended up being crushed in the pyroclastic flows. It couldn’t have been something they really wanted – to die a horrible death. Why did they stay?

The people that were able to leave New Orleans but chose not to (I’m not talking about the poor and disenfranchised who had not alternatives to leave the city). Why did they stay? Did they really want to drown, deal with the lootings, etc., or be subjected to hours and hours of terror while the hurricane ripped through the city?

And now, in Oak Creek Canyon, some people have chosen to stay in their houses. Why?

Isn’t life MUCH more important than material goods? Wouldn’t you rather save yourself, your loved ones, and your pets rather than perish in a fire?

These are the issues:

When you selfishly stay in your home, you tax the reserves of the people who are trying to put out the fire. They now have to not only worry about the actual fire but have to worry about you, too.

Only emergency vehicles are allowed on this little two lane road that has no exits. How do you think you’re going to get out?

You have no electricity. Water is iffy.

What is worth so much that people are willing to risk their lives?

To me, it’s rather selfish. They risk not only their own lives and those of their families and pets – but the lives of those who will have to come to their rescue.