How did you became interested in prepping?

[GPS]

I am not doing research on the end of days or the various scenarios you have presented. As I have said numerous times I am interested in how people prepare for risk. I think you have misread my intentions based on that question when it was just a genuine curioisty that I have and I am just trying to engage in the forum. The response to my question if anything renforces the rational nature of most of the prepping discussion that is done here but you are all also aware there is a side to it that is intrested in events that are more unlikely to happen so I think it is a legitimate way of trying to understand the differences in outlook towards prepping. I understand the cynicism regarding what I do but I am genuinely making an effort to learn so I think it is a bit unfair to jump on everything I say and presume I am trying to mock you or make fun of you. I really am not so I apologisee if it seems that way. I wish my students would critically evalauate my questions in the same way. It would make my classes a lot more interesting

Yes you have repeatedly said you are researching how people prepare for risk. But as you are undoubtedly aware part of assessing risk, which is a necessary component in preparing for it, is understanding the probability of the thing happening. Yet your question, that you were so keen to discuss with us, blithely went from the topic preparing for an RTA to a Mass Extinction Event, as though the latter were merely a slightly exaggerated version of the former. That says you haven't actually been paying attention to what we've been saying. And that is annoying. There are things that are "more unlikely to happen", such as hurricanes in Britain (the last one being in 1987); then there are things that are "fairly unlikely to happen"such as pandemic as seen on scale of the Spanish Flu (H1N1) epidemic in 1918; then there is "really quite unlikely to happen" such as one of the Icelandic volcanos erupting and causing even more havoc than Eyjafjallajökull did in 2010; then there's "probably won't happen" such as London flooding from a tsunami/storm surge (the only time the Thames has actually come over the embankments after they were built by Bazalgette was in 1928, though during the big storm surge on 1953 whilst it didn't breach the embankments it did flood the parts of London not protected - hence we now have the Thames Barrier); and a long, long, long way down at the bottom we have "seriously not going to happen" which is the mass extinction event you describe.

Before you get upset that I'm still having a go, I'm not, I'm answering your question. How do we prepare for risk? We prepare by informing ourselves about the risk, of which a not insubstantial part is understanding the likelihood of it happening. The advice given to all newbies in prepping is to draw up a list of the events situations that are likely to befall you (you personally, not someone else's list) and grade them in order of likelihood. Then, start at the top of the list and prep either to eliminate the risk if possible, or to ameliorate the negative side-effects of the risk. You may, or may not, be surprised to know that in the West you have a 53% chance of dying from heart disease, cancer or stroke. If you smoke, that is increased to 58%. That means you, or the person next to you WILL die from one of those things, with rather more chance it's going to be you. So if we assume that the ultimate prep is to try to prevent unnecessary premature death, perhaps your first prep should be to get more exercise, eat better, drink less, apply sun screen and, if necessary, stop smoking. But alas that isn't very sexy compared to knives, guns and camouflage trousers, and so tends to go unnoticed particularly by those outside the preppersphere.

The reason why I quote specific dates, events and probability percentages is partly my own academic hangovers and partly because I am trying to demonstrate to you the level of research preppers will undertake to understand a potential problem be it nuclear apocalypse, surviving a plane crash at sea, or dealing with a pandemic. The Mormons (big preppers with a penchant for strange underwear) often quote a phrase from their Doctrine and Covenants, Section 38: Verse 30: "If ye are prepared, ye shall not fear" and it does rather encapsulate the issue. If you do not understand the risk, it seems huge, insurmountable and imminent. By understanding the risk you can take a lot of the fear away.

Take your nuclear apocalypse scenario. If you research first the actual bombs themselves and how they work you realise that outside the immediate blast zone (which is "only" 2 miles in the case of a 10 megaton bomb - and that's quite a big bomb), you actually have a a very high chance of survival (I don't have the actual statistic to hand but it's greater than 90%), particularly if you follow the much maligned "duck and cover" advice which is very good, and especially if you have some preps in place (suggest you look up Morrison Shelters). The duck part is based on well established research before, during and after WWII about simple steps that will increase your chances of surviving a bomb blast - for example simply lying down as opposed to standing up increases your survival chances by 50%. Ultimately it doesn't matter if the blast has been caused by a conventional bomb or a nuclear bomb, the blast part is the same. I could at this point write a lengthy paragraph on the bits that are different from conventional bombs: the flash (won't kill you but might make you blind, so shut your eyes at the very least); 11 second heat wave (even ordinary clothing will protect your skin from burns, so cover your head with your arms) and radioactive fallout (after the flash, if you are within the fallout zone, you have around 30 mins to find shelter, bottom line the further you are away from the dust, the better your chances. The dust has a half-life of just 1 hour. In real terms this means holing up for 2 weeks then the radiation levels are no longer harmful) but hey I can do it in a rather long sentence! Of course that is just a single bomb, what if they all go off? So now you research war strategies, the difference between counter-force and counter-strike and the role of civil defences and gradually you realise that although, yes, if all the nuclear bombs in the world were set off that would indeed be a mass extinction event, but that is simply not going to happen. If all the gun owners in the world started firing indiscriminately that would also be a mass extinction event. But it's not going to happen. Just because there is the potential for something to happen, doesn't mean it will. So now you realise that although it is likely that there will be another nuclear exchange within the next 50 years, that doesn't equate to nuclear apocalypse. Not by a long shot. Hence our annoyance at your glib end-of-the-world scenario.

Your question about why one would want to survive an apocalypse (as opposed to a bump in the road - i.e. The Black Death (1346-1353) caused 75 million deaths which was 30-60% of the population of Europe and reduced the world wide population by 22%, it is the deadliest event ever to occur in human history and is, to date, the nearest we've ever come to extinction. It still wasn't an apocalypse, though by all accounts, and there are many, it felt pretty bad) isn't really a question for preppers. The very act of prepping means that we're kind of committed to surviving. But there is much discussion on this board and elsewhere about the importance of positivity after some catastrophic event so again it's not like we don't think about it, but ultimately you will never know how you will react until you're faced with that situation. My advice to talk to psychologists about that one is genuine if you are indeed curious. There is much research on survivor guilt. There is much research on hope and its requirements for life - including the research mentioned on concentration camp survivors. Why do you think "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate" (abandon hope all you who enter here) is the mythical sign written above the gates to Hell in Dante's Divine Comedy (1308-1320)? Its most recent incarnation affecting the British legislation on indefinite prison sentences.

Ultimately, I believe, preppers are curious people. Why they come to prepping is varied, for some it's an extension of a hobby they've done for years (e.g. bushcraft) for others it's the result of a personal catastrophe that they don't want to repeat. Within prepping people naturally have different interests, many of us discover new interests which then develop into new hobbies (I've recently taken up clay-pigeon shooting). Self-sufficiency and prepping are closely correlated so a lot of us grow our own food and learn how to preserve it, exchanging recipes and tips. For some people the gear is what they enjoy - the perfect knife, the best rucksack, the latest development in torches etc.. The joy of the forum is that we can all talk about what we do without judgement - which we get quite a lot of in the real world! If you look back on the boards you'll find a number of people who, within the first 10 messages, start talking about nuclear apocalypse or some such mass extinction event. They are all gently (or firmly) guided either to concentrate on the more likely things or urged to find a different board of like minded people, of which there are a number. You weren't being singled out.

Fair enough. I can see why that would be frustrating and I appreciate your suggestions and the time you have taken to reply to me. I want to touch on two interesting things you have said here that are common amongst most of the posters I have engged with.

(1) The amount of research that many of you do is really impressive. I am wondering (as someone whose job is to do research) what sources do you use to ensure the information you are receiving is accurate? I say this as it has become increasingly difficult in my job to direct students to appropriate sources that can be verified etc. Is there much conflict and dispute about some of the stats that are presented within this community for example?

(2) I find it really interesting that you mention heart disease which is obviously one of the most likely ways we will die. This should obviously be the priority when ranking your risks. However, do you think that most preppers prioritise this risk, as in is it fair to safe that you are quite health conscious?

[GPS]

You know someone once told me that if everyone in China jumped up in the air at the same time there would be serious seismic consequences

We don't prep for nuclear war nor earthquakes why? They are unlikely, we live in Plymouth which would surly be a military target, and a blast wave or an earthquake would bury us under our own preps as the loft gave way and all the stuff fell down around us, so some things even a prepper has to trust to fate

As has been said it's an ongoing risk assessment and you'll not that the consensus if opinion here as tensions increase between NK and USA is the never before in humanity has willy waving been done on such a grand scale by some of the most ridiculously comedic characters ever to lead nations, I'm sure we would all feel a little more secure and perhaps even more amused if they would just moon at one another on twitter. So we keep an eye on the news and are generally less panicked than any of the tabloid papers would have the general population on these matters, which brings me to the media, there are scare stories about potential world ending events every few weeks these days, often linking preppers to them when they are not, the state of the main stream media is in itself way more paranoid that the folks here are, and they are probably a distraction from other things, I don't trust what they say as for as long as I can remember the media attempts to drive opinion as is apposed to report it, and I certainly do not trust any media company to interview us then present us as we would have tried to express ourselves, fortunately we don't need votes nor justification so in general can say "on yer bike" when someone wants to ask questions from that angle, a researcher is a bit different but can be as frustrating I suppose, when you think all one has to do is read existing threads to get a true feel.

I understand that frustration. Again, I didn't mena to imply at all that you are all 'nutters' but I can understand how that was interpreted when I mention certain topics. Yes this site is a treasure trove of threads and I have formed the impression that this is a space for rational preparation discussion.

[GPS]

Another great post, ukpreppergrrl!

If you look back on the boards you'll find a number of people who, within the first 10 messages, start talking about nuclear apocalypse or some such mass extinction event. They are all gently (or firmly) guided either to concentrate on the more likely things or urged to find a different board of like minded people, of which there are a number. You weren't being singled out.

GPS, I hoicked a quote out from your post at the end of the last page: "I think it is a bit unfair to jump on everything I say and presume I am trying to mock you or make fun of you." As ukpreppergrrl says, you aren't being singled out, certainly about nuclear etc apocalypse. You're asking a lot of questions, and people are answering them, and discussing both your questions and other people's answers. You can see discussion threads on here that go on for pages - in fact, just last week, I think, a new version of one of them was started, because it went on for so long, in number and timing of posts.

And as for our being unfair - our agenda is that every previous journalist, every researcher, has come to us with this agenda about apocalypse, usually nuclear. It's happened a lot. I emailed you a very specific example. In my mind, you were on the way to proving that you might well not have that agenda.

If you re-examine your aims, and find that you still don't consider yourself to have that agenda, then I agree with the suggestion that we're only a part of the UK research you need to do. Trying to find information on here about prepping for some nuclear apocalypse is just going to get into a circular discussion, and end up referring to ukpreppergrrl's posts. Your curiosity about it, legitimate though it is, is not going to be satisfied on here, because it's not A Thing on here.

Your question about "whats fun", by the way. I like that prepping is wide-ranging - I have a lot of interests, and some of them are quite isolated from one another. Prepping brings a few of them together. I like online research, for instance! One minor instance from a few years ago, when the winter floods were so bad. I was pretty ill, and I lived 300 miles away from my mother. The nearest relative who'd help her first in a flood was a drive away of 45 minutes. So I looked at the environment agency's flood map, then found a UK elevation map, both of them online, and worked on integrating the two. During those particular floods, she had a red flood warning about half a mile away from her house, and although she was very elderly she was still really feisty, and I was worried she'd try to walk out, although she couldn't really walk very far any more. So I dinned it into her, that if the floods started coming because the riverbank had broken, she wasn't to try to walk, she should find her mobile phone, put a coat on, and go upstairs to wait for rescue. It never happened, but it sobered her, and made her think a bit more carefully than she had been. That's real life prepping.

Agreed. Lets move on from the nuclear discussion.Also, I appreciate every answer I get and the detail that everyone has responded to me with has really created some interesting discussion. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of friendly debate either

[itsybitsy]

Having had a nose at that other site, its not for me, I'm not reactionary enough and from the brief bit I read on the 'Welcome' page, I'm guessing they might have stronger views on a range of issues than we discuss on here. Each to their own I guess, as I said GPS, if you're happy enough here, stay and post, or nose around or.... whatever works for you mate.

We are looking at risk from a variety of different perspectives and there are very few communities or forums that talk about it in a rational and detailed way. Hence, I hope you don't mind me sticking around asking a few more questions.

You can stay. But please, tread carefully. Think about what you post before you post it. We are lucky here that our members are great at 'self-moderating' without too much intervention needed from the mods. However, we are keeping a close eye on how things are unfolding. On balance, you have been given a very gentle pummelling so far. Trust me, this could be a lot worse. If you treat this community with respect, and bring informed debate, rather than blithely naïve opinions and flippant comments, you will find you get a lot further. If there are any complaints from our members then I'm afraid you will be asked to leave.

I need to ask, at this point, how you intend to obtain permission from individuals on here to use what they share? Or are you taking someone's willingness to enter into an open debate or answer one of your questions on the forum as them agreeing for their words to be used in your work? Please can you share with us how you intend to go about this so that people can make an informed decision as to whether they want to enter into a conversation, either on the open boards, or in private.

[Deeps]

Having had a nose at that other site, its not for me, I'm not reactionary enough and from the brief bit I read on the 'Welcome' page, I'm guessing they might have stronger views on a range of issues than we discuss on here. Each to their own I guess, as I said GPS, if you're happy enough here, stay and post, or nose around or.... whatever works for you mate.

We are looking at risk from a variety of different perspectives and there are very few communities or forums that talk about it in a rational and detailed way. Hence, I hope you don't mind me sticking around asking a few more questions.

Not at all mate, enjoy the forum.

[Wood cutter]

GPS, I've been reading this thread with interest, but also as an outsider. I think I joined the forum on the same day that you did and have, to date, made only a handful of posts.

I'm very interested in what you hope to achieve here, as I'm confused by your approach.

I think some info about me may be useful first, to provide some context. I'm a marketing and business strategy consultant (and have been for many years). As such, I'm a very experienced and (also qualified) researcher. Having studied research methods in some detail whilst completing my studies with the Chartered Institute of Marketing, and since having completed 100's of in depth research projects for clients, I find your methods, for want of a better word, peculiar.

Now, whilst I respect your credentials, I just cant get over the fact that your posts don't seem to have been written by a professional researcher, and certainly not one who hopes to answer the questions you profess to be researching. I'm sure that you agree that not asking leading questions would be covered in day one of any research training, yet you seem to intentionally lead respondents at every opportunity. In this respect, your approach seems much more journalist than impartial researcher. If this were my project, I'd also be very concerned at your emotion led responses, and even more so that you seem to be informing the respondents of one intention, but then leading the conversation in a very different way.

I'd be very interested to have some further info regarding your research methodology, as from a professional perspective, I'm fascinated.

As someone who, in a former life as a professional climber, was taught to asses risk, and also as someone who now spends a lot of time researching and formulating strategic advantages (and the risks thereof) for clients, I'd love to understand your objectives in more detail.

[Wood cutter]

Apologies for referring to members here as 'respondents'. Goes with the day job I'm afraid.

[GPS]

Having had a nose at that other site, its not for me, I'm not reactionary enough and from the brief bit I read on the 'Welcome' page, I'm guessing they might have stronger views on a range of issues than we discuss on here. Each to their own I guess, as I said GPS, if you're happy enough here, stay and post, or nose around or.... whatever works for you mate.

We are looking at risk from a variety of different perspectives and there are very few communities or forums that talk about it in a rational and detailed way. Hence, I hope you don't mind me sticking around asking a few more questions.

You can stay. But please, tread carefully. Think about what you post before you post it. We are lucky here that our members are great at 'self-moderating' without too much intervention needed from the mods. However, we are keeping a close eye on how things are unfolding. On balance, you have been given a very gentle pummelling so far. Trust me, this could be a lot worse. If you treat this community with respect, and bring informed debate, rather than blithely naïve opinions and flippant comments, you will find you get a lot further. If there are any complaints from our members then I'm afraid you will be asked to leave.

I need to ask, at this point, how you intend to obtain permission from individuals on here to use what they share? Or are you taking someone's willingness to enter into an open debate or answer one of your questions on the forum as them agreeing for their words to be used in your work? Please can you share with us how you intend to go about this so that people can make an informed decision as to whether they want to enter into a conversation, either on the open boards, or in private.

Good question. It was important for me to disclose myself as a researcher right from the beginning. I initially came on the forum with the intention of looking for people to interview. For the people I have interviewed individually they have been assured of anonymity and have the option of pulling out of the research at any time. However, obviously there has been some discussion on the forums that could potentially be used as data. If this was to happen I would seek permission from anyone involved in the exchanges that I use in publication. If I was to use any of these exchanges with permission I would not use the name of the website, any of the real usernames or use any direct quotes (unless I was explicitly given permission) as they can obviously be searched online to reveal the identity of the user etc. If anyone has further questions please don't hesitate to ask.

[GPS]

GPS, I've been reading this thread with interest, but also as an outsider. I think I joined the forum on the same day that you did and have, to date, made only a handful of posts.

I'm very interested in what you hope to achieve here, as I'm confused by your approach.

I think some info about me may be useful first, to provide some context. I'm a marketing and business strategy consultant (and have been for many years). As such, I'm a very experienced and (also qualified) researcher. Having studied research methods in some detail whilst completing my studies with the Chartered Institute of Marketing, and since having completed 100's of in depth research projects for clients, I find your methods, for want of a better word, peculiar.

Now, whilst I respect your credentials, I just cant get over the fact that your posts don't seem to have been written by a professional researcher, and certainly not one who hopes to answer the questions you profess to be researching. I'm sure that you agree that not asking leading questions would be covered in day one of any research training, yet you seem to intentionally lead respondents at every opportunity. In this respect, your approach seems much more journalist than impartial researcher. If this were my project, I'd also be very concerned at your emotion led responses, and even more so that you seem to be informing the respondents of one intention, but then leading the conversation in a very different way.

I'd be very interested to have some further info regarding your research methodology, as from a professional perspective, I'm fascinated.

As someone who, in a former life as a professional climber, was taught to asses risk, and also as someone who now spends a lot of time researching and formulating strategic advantages (and the risks thereof) for clients, I'd love to understand your objectives in more detail.

Thanks for your comments. I think my credentials as a researcher are there for anyone to see and I have also taught research methods for many years so I am confident in what I do. It might seem unusual as I tend to follow more sociological and long-term methods where I try and spend a good bit of time trying to engage in the research area. Marketing and Business consultancy research projects tend to be a bit more efficient in terms of speaking to specific research questions and marketplace problems so there tends to be a different type of culture around academic research in comparison to industry - particularly qualitative research like this.

I also am coming in as an outsider which I find is a good way of learning about something in detail as you tend to ask questions which insiders would take for granted (see some of the questions I have been rightly mocked about for example ). It enables you to build up a detailed understanding of something that can eliminate any potentially biases that long-term engagement might have. There are adv and disadv to different approaches I suppose.

I don't agree that I am asking leading questions. This is an exploratory study so I don't have any set hypotheses we are trying to actually 'lead' towards answering so I don't have anything to lead towards at this early stage. I am just trying to find my feet at this stage. Questions that might seem biased are probably just to provoke conversation around a particular area. For example, my reference to nuclear attacks etc. actually did me a world of good in terms of understanding what prepping actually 'is' as many of the users called me out on my ignorance and really articulated the distinction between the stereotype and the reality. Also, I will obviously look over any data I have in detail and be able to figure out if I have made mistakes and whether certain answers to questions should be contextualised by potential bias or mistakes on my part. If you want to discuss this in more detail I can PM you or vice versa.

[ukpreppergrrl]

(1) The amount of research that many of you do is really impressive. I am wondering (as someone whose job is to do research) what sources do you use to ensure the information you are receiving is accurate? I say this as it has become increasingly difficult in my job to direct students to appropriate sources that can be verified etc. Is there much conflict and dispute about some of the stats that are presented within this community for example?

I can only speak for myself but, it's pretty obvious from the way articles are written whether or not they are "scholarly" in nature, but that in itself is not a reason to believe everything they say, neither is it a reason not to believe un-scholarly articles. Reading their bibliography enables you to see where they have come from, and it's always good to see primary sources there, and worrying when they're not. But importantly it often reveals their agenda, whether they know that is what they've done or not. The bibliography also gives you further sources to read - which can be very interesting as you may come to a different conclusion about that source than did the author of the original article. Peer review of the articles is important, but the main aim is trying to go where possible to primary sources yourself and draw your own conclusions. Reading as many different articles about a subject as possible is always revealing. Oftentimes you can see they are just regurgitating what others say, repeating the same, sometimes wrong, information. At the very least you learn of the axiom texts that everyone refers to (e.g. if you're researching attachment theory you have to read Bowlby) Sometimes there will be someone who introduces a paradigm shift and offers quite compelling evidence about it (e.g. David Rohl's restructuring of the timeline of the ancient pharaohs). Sometimes you also have to accept that an academic has nailed their colours to the mast and after 30 years of making their name in that field they are not going to change their mind about their idea (e.g. Minsky and Strong AI). Unless the evidence for something is clear cut there will always be debate about the finer details: just how many people did die in the four years of Mao Tse Tung's Great Leap Forward? There are only estimates, and each researcher will have their own reason for coming up with the figure they have. But the point is everyone seems to agree that it was A Very Bad Thing in terms of population decline.

Do I always do this? No. If I were writing a PhD on prepping then most definitely I would, but I'm not. This is a hobby. My aim isn't to write the definitive guide to surviving a nuclear apocalypse, it's to help me get a grasp on what such a thing entails. When I, or other people, put up statistics or theories about things, if I am suitably interested I go off and I do some research which either supports what they put or doesn't. But even bad articles can be useful as they make you think and consolidate in your mind just why you disagree with them.

(2) I find it really interesting that you mention heart disease which is obviously one of the most likely ways we will die. This should obviously be the priority when ranking your risks. However, do you think that most preppers prioritise this risk, as in is it fair to safe that you are quite health conscious?

Yes your health should indeed be your No.1 prep. But the problem with health is that it (usually) involves lifestyle changes, which are quite difficult to do. Very difficult for most of us. Much more difficult than buying a shiny new rucksack, or building a food store, or learning how to make fire from two boy scouts. It's also quite boring in comparison to spending the weekend under canvas in the wood with a group of like-minded friends. Some people love exercise and for them it's really not a problem, but for the rest of us it's a daily chore. Some people are tea total by choice, others of us quite like a drink or three. Some people genuinely like eating small portions of well-balanced food, others of us struggle with not having at least one burger and chips a week, preferably with a bottle of the old scarlet vino! And although I have never been a smoker myself, my understanding is that it is really very hard to stop and most ex-smokers never really lose the cravings. Am I health conscious? Yes, inasmuch as I am conscious that I should treat it like a prep as, after all, it is the major risk in my life. Do I keep up with those preps...intermittently perhaps, but religiously...probably not.