Cora and I waited patiently in Euston's train station for our turn to board a train to Wales from London on 7 June this year. While I was more attentive than Cora was to the regular announcements about evacuations and shutdowns of London's Underground, I wasn't frightened because no one seemed alarmed. As hundreds of commuters filed out into the street when the police eventually evacuated us, we didn't hear the No. 30 bus bomb explosion that occurred that very moment just one-quarter mile away. Therefore, while many of us unsuccessfully tried to reach a person by cell phone who might know what was happening, none of us were overtly frightened. Concerned, yes. Frightened, no.

To make a long story short, that morning did become intense for us, as our only route from Euston to our friend's flat was past King's Cross, where all traffic was diverted to unfamiliar routes. When we finally arrived (on busses that some U.S. news journalists stated weren't running), we were amazed at what had happened. Rumors had floated through the streets, but we learned that Londoners had become accustomed to transportation evacuations and diversions, so no one quite believed the devastation until they viewed it on their televisions. Even then, Londoners shook their heads in disbelief - not so much at what had happened, but at how the newscasters presented their journalism.

Over the ensuing weeks, I read and heard reporters of all stripes as they asked London and U.S. interviewees repeatedly, "Are you afraid? Are you afraid NOW?" The responses that I heard and read were just as insistent - a fairly emphatic, "No," although the person interviewed might seem leery, as if they felt that they might be giving the wrong answer - or bemused, as though they were possibly asked the wrong question. It appeared, for a time, that reporters were determined to uncover fear wherever possible.

Unfortunately, while many people realize that the world isn't the same now as it was before 9/11/2001, approximately half the U.S. population remains frightened about terrorism and a portion of this number have internalized their fears. An Associated Press/Ipsos poll taken the week after the 7 July bombings in London found that 57% of those polled believe that an attack on mass transit is inevitable and 37% are concerned that they or their loved ones will be victims. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll that was conducted just after the London attacks revealed that 55% of its respondents believe that a terrorist act will occur on U.S. soil within the next few weeks.

The 9 Aug 2005 issue of USA TODAY's Money section ran the headline, "Terror fears, weather send oil soaring" (the comma between terror and fears was omitted in the actual headline), a story that emphasized concerns about terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and further trepidation about stormy weather that could disrupt U.S. oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Add a few aging U.S. refineries that might not keep up with gasoline demand, and the equation equals oil prices that have broken records.

That same issue of USA TODAY provided readers a panacea of sorts through an article by Marc Siegel, entitled, "Terrorism is everywhere. Only it isn't." After I read his article I felt that I had met a philosophical soul mate. He stated, "A little perspective will go a long way in today's age of terror." Terrorism, states Siegel, is more about fear than it is about actual risk. For instance:

"After 9/11, a new phobia about airplanes led to more people taking to the road, despite the fact that more than 40,000 people die in traffic accidents in the USA each year. Fewer had died in commercial airplane accidents over the past half century. Your chance of dying during your next plane trip? One in 15 million. During your next car trip? One in 7.6 million. In other words, if being afraid of being on a plane leads you to drive, you instantly double your chances of being in a fatal accident."

Bicycle sales skyrocketed in London the day after the bombings. I don't know if statistics exist to compare fatalities on bikes to rides on London's Underground, but my London friend states that common sense might dictate that a cyclist who dodges London's traffic would stand less of a chance for a long life comparatively. Accordingly, I don't have exact statistics on how people specifically react to stock market scares; however, I do know that many investors tend to dump stocks in search of low-risk investments (or none at all) when the markets begin to resonate with a fearful environment.

Siegel states that many of our fearful responses might occur from an almond-shaped "fear center" located in our brain, also known as the amygdala. While work on the amygdala is well-established in animals, applications to humans remain preliminary. But, Elizabeth Phelps, a professor of psychology and neural science at New York University, has studied the human brain's response to videos of dangerous situations rather than real dangers by using the latest in magnetic resonance imaging exam techniques.

Phelps discovered that the effects on the brain's physiology are the same with a simulated attack as with a real one. The Internet, television, movies, and newspapers all become vehicles for the types of responses that Phelps has studied. Visualized threats or real events half a world away all become part of our everyday 24-7 news world, part of our internalized response to future events. A feeling of helplessness and uncertainty compounds what terror actually achieves.

While you're camped out at home with the gas-guzzler safely tucked in the garage and with the news blaring, remember this: You can still invest online if you don't want to leave the house. Tell your amygdala to go clean the bathroom while you investigate some worthwhile portfolio prospects. And, if your amygdala sneaks back to whisper "identity theft" in your ear, I'll show you a few ways to avoid that possibility next week, including safety measures that BUYandHOLD takes for your protection.

Until Then,
Linda Goin